Mr. Chairman, various speakers have already referred to the staff shortage. This is a serious problem to which there is no simple or single solution. I have great appreciation for the approach of the hon. Minister in this regard, viz. that this is a problem which should be approached on various fronts. That is why I should like to make a contribution in this regard. I want to emphasize that there are no simple solutions to this problem and that my contribution in this regard should not be seen as a simple solution.

I want to advocate that this shortage could be alleviated to a great extent in certain offices by making greater use of lawyers from the private sector. In particular I want to single out the office of the Attorney-General as an example of where the private sector could be employed to a greater extent. This would not only alleviate the staff shortage considerably but I also want to suggest that it would be much cheaper for the State to employ private advocates. In one of our large cities for example, when there are more advocates in the office of the Attorney General than there are at the Bar, it is evident that this matter should definitely be investigated. I want to suggest that if a substantially greater number of prosecutions and appeal cases were given to private advocates to deal with the staff of the Attorney General would be sufficient at this stage, and possibly even excessive.

I actually want to come to the so-called sub judice rule. This rule has received considerable attention of late but has also had to endure considerable criticism. In Parliament we had the so-called Aggett case where this rule was blatantly violated by people who piously claim to have respect for the law. [Interjections.] It also happened in the case of the hijack trial in Pietermaritzburg where this rule came into prominence a few days ago. It is therefore fitting that we should look at this rule and its application in order to establish whether it is still valid. This rule arose out of the common law offence of contempt of court which in turn forms part of the general offence of defeating the ends of justice. The offence of contempt ex facie curiae may be loosely defined as a illegal publication, orally or in writing, of comment on a pending lawsuit calculated to influence the proper course of the administration of justice. The purpose of the offence was set out by the hon. Mr. Justice Wessels in the case Attorney-General vs. Crockett 1911 TPD 893 on page 914 as follows—

More recently in the case of Ivger (Pty) Ltd. vs. Engelbrecht and Others 1980 (4) SACR, the hon. Mr. Justice Nestadt said the following—

There can be little doubt about the wisdom and validity of making this an offence. If a public debate on a pending lawsuit is permitted it would inevitably cause the witnesses to become unwilling to give evidence, for when they give evidence they would subject their evidence to public debate and criticism. Why should they then give evidence if they subject themselves to such debate? It would also cause people to become unwilling to come forward with evidence. In civil cases it could possibly result in people being pressurized into settling or into possibly withholding a good case from a lawsuit. In the case of Tennant vs. Bisset 1932 CPD it was ruled, inter alia—I want to suggest that this is a good basis—

Public debate and criticism of witnesses cannot but make the case extremely difficult for the judge or magistrate. Whatever ruling the judge or magistrate gives the impression could be created that he was influenced one way or another by the public debate.

I want to suggest that Parliament is the best example of where this principle is absolutely essential. Parliament is in an elevated position and the media take note of what is said here. The administration of justice, too, at least administratively, falls under Parliament. If a public debate is allowed to take place in Parliament about a pending lawsuit, about the merits of certain witnesses and about the way in which the case should be decided, this can only make things extremely difficult for the judge. He will not be able to dissociate himself completely from the debate here and whatever judgment he gives, the impression will inevitably be created that he might have been influenced by one of the views expressed in Parliament. Even this impression is not in the interest of Parliament, nor is it in the interest of the administration of justice.

Could it not possibly be applied in a broader sense than required specifically by law?

I am coming to that. From the motivation for this rule it is clear that the prohibition of the publication of anything which could frustrate the proper administration of justice should apply not only while the case is being heard but also while the case is pending. Should it be limited to while the case is being heard the whole purpose of the rule could be frustrated because the case, even before it reaches the courts, could receive publicity that is such that it could quite probably influence the proper course of the administration of justice.

Because to a great extent inquests contain all the elements of an ordinary lawsuit and because the same considerations apply, viz. witnesses should be willing to testify and persons should be willing to come forward with evidence, this rule should apply in the case of inquests, too. Therefore no valid criticism could be levelled against the recent Act which provides that this rule shall apply in the case of inquests as well.

In spite of everything I said I do want to ask that consideration be given to the possibility of dealing with this common law offence of contempt ex facie curiae by way of statute. The matter could perhaps be referred to the law commission for its consideration. As the offence stands at present it also means that discussion and publication is prohibited until the conclusion of the appeal. I think that this is probably taking the matter too far. To my mind the possibility that the proper administration of justice could be influenced by publication during the hearing of appeal is extremely small. Evidence would then already have been given and the Appeal Court is confined to the record. Should it be retained in its present form it could take years before this aspect would be open for publication and public debate. In English law there is already an indication that there is a far more liberal approach to contempt of court as far as appeals are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. nominated member Mr. Schutte will forgive me if I do not enter into the sub judice argument, except to say that I do not think anybody would quarrel if the representations made by him are referred to the Law Commission.

When a crime becomes more prevalent than other crimes and when a crime is as devastating as that of rape, then I think the hon. the Minister and his Department should take cognizance of it. I am referring to the large number of cases that have been reported and that come before the courts. The recent Police report reflects that there were 14 938 reported cases of rape in 1979-’80 and 15 318 in 1980-’81. A breakdown of previous years’ cases show that by far the largest number is non-White women by non-White men. These figures for the last three years are 14 373, 14 381 and 15 228, and they include attempts as well. The figures in respect of a White woman by a White man are 405 427 and 441 cases over the last three years. The figure in respect of non-Whites by non-Whites is startling, because it means that there are 42 cases of rape or attempted rape per day or 1,7 per hour. It is largely believed that—I think one accepts that—out of every one case that is reported ten cases are not reported. It is for this reason of non-reporting that we should express our concern and find out why these cases are not reported. I should like to submit three reasons.

Firstly, a woman who is raped feels ashamed and reviled that she in fact has been raped. Secondly, a woman who reports the matter must be examined by a district surgeon and answer a lot of questions of a personal and intimate nature. Thirdly, the type of defence used by defence lawyers on the instructions of the accused, is traumatic for the victim as her personal life, integrity and sexual experience is tested in court.

I want to refer to Form J.88 which has to be filed by the district surgeon and I want to ask for this form to be reviewed. I must admit in my experience as a defence lawyer in rape cases, I have on the instructions of the accused the unpleasant task of cross-examining complainants in rape cases in order to establish their credibility. The defence tries to show that she is a woman of loose morals and that her sexual habits are such that carnal intercourse may well have been consented to. Furthermore, I believe that most lawyers are obliged to use this line of defence. The consequences then of being found guilty are very grave because it carries the death sentence. Only in a few cases, nevertheless, is it still a capital offence, which I disagree with. In the period June 1976 to June 1980 41 340 men were prosecuted for rape, 22 408 men were found guilty of rape and 19 men received the death sentence.

Let us for a moment take a look at the definition of rape. Rape is committed by a male of the age of fourteen years or over who has unlawful carnal knowledge of the female without her consent. Anyone assisting such male is committing such an act and is also guilty of rape. I quote this definition in order than we can include anal, oral and instrumental rape. It does not include the rape of one male on another male. This is a particular heinous sort of crime which happens in confined places where men are bound together. I am told of a hair-raising experience in a gaol—not in this country— where a prisoner is alleged to have been raped five times a day while in prison.

A rape victim who reports the case to the Police should be dealt with separately and with sympathy and should be examined by the district surgeon where she can give a statement and information sufficient for the police to take action. The evidence to be presented to court, however, should be prepared at a stage when she has her wits about her and recovered from the shock. An accused cannot of course be denied the defence and for this reason one cannot hold back the questioning by defence lawyers on matters such as the state of her clothes and other things which I have referred to. However, to get over the difficulty, the case should be heard in camera at her request. I do not think all this should become the eyes and ears of the world as reported by the Press. I know submissions have been made from time to time by Women’s Legal Status Committee to permanent penal reform committees, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us whether they in fact have made any recommendations and what progress, if any, has been made by the South African Law Commission. According to an article in the Sunday Express of 31 January a rape takes place every two minutes and, according to the report, only one in every thirty is reported. I am heartened by the statement made in court by the Judge President of the Cape, Justice Munnik. He is taking a strong line and when a case becomes too prevalent it is the duty of the court to punish the offender sufficiently to deter others from committing the same crime.

In an age such as this when drugs are abused and people’s courage is heightened by the sort of drugs that they take, rape becomes the sort of offence which one lends oneself to. However, On this score I cannot go along with the suggestion made in the House the other day that a person convicted on a drug offence, a pusher, should receive the death sentence. A pusher is the victim and sometimes he pushes to obtain money to buy further drugs to which he is addicted. He is therefore not a pusher in that sense and therefore he should be very careful about the death sentence.

The crime of rape does lead to child abuse as well, and according to some reports mentioned rapes take place on babies as young as six months and on women as old as ninety years.

There have been cases of suicide where women have been gang raped and where life has become so traumatic for the victims that it lead to suicide. It is shown that 90% of all gang rape cases are preplanned. It would be ideal for policewomen, specially trained to deal with rape victims, to handle reports of rape to the police. The women police could then accompany the victim to the district surgeon, help to take the statement and help to comfort her through the legal formalities.

I am not impressed by the attitude of some courts in dealing with rape victims who were hitchhiking late at night. We live in a free society and I do not believe a woman is inviting rape by hitchhiking. She may be hitching out of necessity in order to get to a particular destination.

There was a call in Britain by MP’s for a mandatory prison sentence centre on rapists, but Mrs. Thatcher decided not to impose a mandatory sentence. I agree with this view and I believe each case must be treated on its own merit. I believe the rape case should be treated in court as rapidly as possible and disposed of in the most humane way in so far as the victims are concerned. We must make our laws of such a nature and our courts should behave in such a way that a woman should have no hesitation whatsoever to report the case to the police to proceed with its prosecution to finality. It is a sad indictment on our life that rape and crisis clinics have to be set up in the various centres of this country. However, they are doing excellent work. We should assign social workers to them wherever possible.

Another aspect in the treatment of an accused found guilty, is the psychiatric and social workers who work on him to avoid him becoming a menace to society and perhaps rehabilitate him back to civilian life. This involves social treatment and should be administered together with a suitable punishment in the circumstances.

One thing is certain, we cannot carry on like this without focusing attention on the problem and looking for a solution. I therefore commend that we appoint a judicial commission of inquiry consisting of judges, prosecutors and attorney generals to examine the whole aspect of rape regarding the reporting, the treatment in court, the treatment of the victim, the accused and the adequate form of punishment which could be described in cases such as these.

I support, and commend it to the hon. the Minister, rape crisis groups in South Africa who would like to see the following changes in the law: Firstly, the legal definition of rape should be changed to sexual assault and should be broadened to encompass other forms of sexual assault including oral, anal, object, male and spouse rape. Secondly, capital punishment for rape should be abolished. Thirdly, the previous sexual history of the victim should be inadmissible. Fourthly, victims should have automatic rights to abortion should they become pregnant, without the present humiliating procedures and bureaucratic delays. Fifthly, rape within marriage should be recognized as a crime. Sixthly, the victim’s evidence should automatically be given in camera unless she specifically requests otherwise. Seventhly, the cautionary rule relating to the complainant’s evidence should be abandoned. Eighthly, prosecutors should be trained to handle sexual assault cases more effectively and there should be special courts to hear the case. Ninthly, there should be more flexibility in the hue and cry rule to take into account the difficulty of making an immediate report. Tenthly, it should be legally recognized that boys under the age of fourteen can commit rape. Eleventhly there should be specially trained police squads for sex crimes. Twelfthly, district surgeons should be legally responsible for ensuring the adequate treatment of rape victims, i.e. the prevention of possible pregnancy or venereal disease as recommended in the S.A. Medical Journal of 31 January 1981. They should in fact advise on the prophylactics that should be necessary for pregnancy and venereal disease and see that the victim is in fact referred to the proper medical attention.

Rape is the only crime for which society inevitably blames the victim. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we share the hon. member for Hillbrow’s concern about the incidence of this serious and repulsive crime, rape. We shall support any steps to combat this crime more effectively. With reference to the hon. the Minister’s remark last night about the possible appointment of a select committee on the report of the Law Commission relating to matrimonial property law we want to say to the hon. the Minister that we consider it to be a good idea and that it could definitely serve a useful purpose and that we support it gladly.

Since the administration of security legislation will henceforth be undertaken by another ministry and another department, it is certainly not inappropriate on this occasion to express certain thoughts in this regard. It is true that over the years there have been few things in South Africa as highly controversial as our security legislation. Our security legislation has been attacked from many quarters and has been sharply condemned, often, ironically enough, by people and countries who had basically the same sort of legislation on their own statute books. However, South Africa’s security legislation is the target of our enemies, and therefore it is understandable. However, I think our security legislation has stood between the peaceful existence of society as it has developed in South Africa through the ages, and chaos which prevails in the rest of Africa. Hon. members may disagree with me on this score but I am convinced that without the security legislation in our statute book today we should not have had the situation of relative safety, freedom and prosperity that we do in fact enjoy in South Africa. That is why in this regard I think the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Pinetown made a really disgraceful attack on the security legislation in South Africa yesterday. In the days ahead we shall debate this matter in depth when we deal with the Rabie Report and the Internal Security Act in the House of Assembly.

The hon. member for Sandton said, inter alia, that a question mark hangs over the freedom of the individual in South Africa. The hon. member for Pinetown said: “This country must return to civilized standards”. These are terrible things to say. One of the two hon. members even compared South Africa to a communist country. These are terrible things to say of one’s fatherland. However, what is the view of a learned British judge, Lord Gardiner, in a report entitled Report of a Committee to consider in the context of civil liberty and human rights measures to deal with terrorism in Northern Island? This report is dated January 1975. Let me quote a few extracts from it—

He goes on to say—

I quote further from page 7—

It is a fact that our community is being threatened by terrorism. If terrorism were to succeed in South Africa, then surely greater evils would occur here than those we have at present. Will hon. members not concede that this is so?

No, because you did not read the whole report, and I have.

About detention this learned judge says—

Such as we have in South Africa—

Will hon. members not concede me this point?

No, you must read the whole report. You are quoting out of context.

This is the situation in South Africa today. We are in great danger. And yet those hon. members want to have the security legislation scrapped.

No, it should be changed.

The Leader of the PFP says we must have security legislation.

You must bring the courts in.

We are still awaiting proposals from that side because it is not that easy. The hon. member for Sandton also said that we were fighting on our borders to protect our civilized values. That is quite true. However, the borders have shifted to our towns and cities. We are fighting terrorism in our towns and cities, too, in South Africa. Our security police are fighting a battle just as fierce as that being fought by our men on the border. We can lose our civilized values in our towns and cities in South Africa too. The weapon in the hands of the security police and in the hands of the hon. the Minister and the ministry is security legislation. And then those hon. members still ask us to remove it from the Statute Book. What do those hon. members really want?

Change the legislation.

We have doubts about what the PFP really want in South Africa if they want to take this weapon out of the hands of the people who work with it.

On the other hand it is a fact that security legislation has been responsible for people losing their freedom of movement in South Africa. These are people who, over the years, have been banned and detained by our ministers and the department, and for very good reasons too. These were people who devoted their energies to endeavours to bring about revolutionary change in South Africa. Not evolutionary but revolutionary change.

How do you know that?

Mr. Chairman, I wish that hon. member who is sitting here blowing hot and cold would rather keep quiet. He should rather go and read the Rabie Report to see what other people who know more about these things than he does, have to say.

These were people who were engaged in revolutionary actions and who were not prepared to work for change in a peaceful way. Over the years not one person has been detained who was not guilty of this in one form or another. Whether or not it is possible to prove this in court, it is a fact. Unfortunately it is also true that over the years people have died in detention. This is true and we cannot deny it. However, let us be fair to South Africa and for once admit that this happens in other countries too. I want to give a few examples. In my hand I have a document in which it is stated that a Mexican American, Joe Campos-Torros, drowned in 1978 after he was detained by the police.

In which country did that happen?

It was in America. Another example of a death in detention is that of Elwin Whitehead. I quote—

Another example is that of Curtis Hostin. I quote—

But nobody approves of that.

I can also quote a very recent example which occurred on 5 February this year. I quote—

I can go on like this. There is also a report about a man, one Michael Consales Pando, who committed suicide in March 1982 during his detention in the police cells in Madrid. Consales Pando’s death was caused by hanging himself with a blanket.

I repeat: I admit that these kind of things happen here and that it is unfortunate that they do happen, but hon. members must be fair to South Africa. This kind of thing happens in other countries too. Why do these hon. members strike at South Africa with redoubled ferocity? I want to turn briefly to the hon. member for Hillbrow. On 1 April this year in Britain a television film was shown which had been made illegally in South Africa by people who entered the country under false pretences as tourists. That film dealt with the death of Dr. Aggett and contained interviews with Dr. Aggett’s father and mother, his fiancé and the hon. member for Houghton.

You are quite right.

Do hon. members know what that hon. member did in that interview? Was the hon. member aware that these people had entered the country under false pretences and were making a film for which they did not have permission?

It is not my job to check on work permits. I am not employed by the Department of Internal Affairs.

In that television programme the hon. member read the same letter she read in the House of Assembly—a letter based on totally unsubstantiated evidence. In that way she blackened the name of her fatherland.

You will never get substantiated evidence in that case.

That evidence she quoted was untested evidence and to this day she has not handed that letter to the hon. the Minister so that the matter can be investigated. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react to what was said by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. The time I have to say what I want to say is very limited. In the first place I want to refer to our standpoint on the reference of the report to a Select Committee. [Interjections.] Oh please, I am trying to discuss a serious matter with the hon. the Minister. My question very simply is why the report as such has to be referred to a Select Committee. Cannot the draft Bill as such be referred to a Select Committee? Then the Select Committee would in fact have something before it on which to deliberate. However, I leave the matter at that, purely as a question and a suggestion we should like to make.

I was very pleased to learn yesterday that a serious look was being taken at the Palace of Justice in Pretoria. I myself wanted to say a few words about the matter yesterday, but time did not permit me to do so. When the outgoing Chief Justice was still the Judge President of the Transvaal, he and I had occasion to discuss the Palace of Justice and the wonderful architectural value of that building which we should try to protect and save. As far as I personally am concerned, the Palace of Justice is such a magnificent structure that its original form should be retained to the greatest possible degree when the building is restored. I have a slight fear that if all the courts mentioned by the hon. the Minister yesterday, were to be accommodated in the existing Palace of Justice, it would not solve the problem of overcrowding. I once learned from one of his predecessors of the existence of a plan to restore the Palace of Justice to its original appearance. This would mean that the northern façade which at present forms the rear of the Palace of Justice—in other words, the structure erected over it where it fronts on the street—would have to be demolished altogether. This is the part accommodating the two large adjoining courts at the rear. The northern façade, which is in fact a more attractive façade than the southern façade, would then be restored to its original appearance, with the beautiful flight of stairs, constructed of sandstone, running down, flanked by the two wings. There was also a plan for constructing a tunnel passing below Vermeulen Street to the north western corner of Vermeulen Street and for additional courts to be built there. I should like to suggest that the three original courts dating from the Republican days, Courts A, B and C, be retained in the original building. There are two small courts, Courts D and E, situated to the side of the building which might possibly be retained as well. I do not think they would bother anybody. The rest of the building should then be used for judges’ chambers, for a reception room for the Judge President, for the library, for the registrar, as well as for adequate robing space for the advocates and for rooms in which attorneys may receive their clients. Then, in my opinion, that building would be utilized in a meaningful way. By reducing its existing space to a small extent, it would become a fully restored building and its appearance would be exactly the same as it was in the Republican days. The other court rooms and offices could then be erected on the other corner of Vermeulen Street. I want to advocate, especially from the point of view of the cultural historical value of that building, that it be restored in this way and that it be developed in this way along with the part on the opposite side of Vermeulen Street.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to react to what was said by the hon. member for Waterkloof as he confined himself exclusively to a local matter.

I want to link up with the hon. member Mr. Schutte, who dealt with the report of the South African Law Commission on the law of matrimonial property. George Bernard Shaw wrote in one of his works —

I thought of these words of the celebrated author after being carried away by the persuasive arguments of the majority report and subsequently being persuaded to adopt the opposite standpoint by the equally persuasive arguments of the minority report. It seems to me, when I look at the women in South Africa in general—I am pleased that the hon. member for Houghton is present here at the moment— that they are doing very well under the present dispensation and need no further rights whatsoever. Here I am referring, of course, to the generally happy, lasting marriage.

Take for example the matter of the management of a joint estate. Legally, as everybody knows, such women are, in fact, in a weaker position than minor children. This, however, is anything but the position of a woman in a happy marriage. At times she is—although the loving husband will not admit to this—the senior partner when it comes to that joint estate. However, I am saying this merely in passing. I believe that many laws are necessitated by the actions of the rigid lines which must of necessity be drawn by legislation. In this way it would appear to me that in the case of the property rights of the married woman legislation is necessary for the sake of a small minority. What I have in mind in this regard is particularly the position of the wife in a divorce case. Let me say at once, however, that in many instances of divorce the husband is reasonable and the parties perfectly able to arrive at a fair agreement. There are exceptions, however, and for the sake of those exceptions legislation is necessary.

In a divorce case the wife, who in most cases has to accept responsibility for the children born from the marriage, is in an invidious position. Throughout the duration of the marriage she used her full income to provide for the needs of the family. The husband, of course, did the same thing. In the case of a young couple the assets usually consist of furniture, linen, crockery and a motor car, all durable articles which cannot, however, be realized without suffering a big loss. A couple married in community of property have to divide the assets. In practice this means that in most cases the wife retains the furniture and the husband the car. One must remember, however, that because of the children who will be living with her, she has more need of transport. Because it is the general attitude that the young woman has to provide her own maintenance, our courts adopt a too negative attitude to applications for maintenance for the wife in such cases. In my opinion the proposed legislation does not cover the unfairness to the wife in a case of this nature. The parties have limited assets, and a division of those assets according to the pattern I have just indicated does not solve the problem. The only way in which the problem can be resolved is to bind the husband’s future income, and I should like to see provision being made for that in legislation.

I have to commend the report of the law commission. It is an in-depth analysis of the law of matrimonial property. I do not know, however, whether the accrual proposal offers a solution to the problem. I should like to know how it works in practice in those countries in which it applies at present. In my opinion the proposed legislation contains amendments which are essential. I refer, for example, to the proposed amendment that parties married by antenuptial contract may vary the antenuptial contract by means of a court order after the marriage has been solemnized. Another proposed amendment is the abolition of the socalled “marital power” of the husband over the wife, also in the case of marriages in community of property. I think the hon. member for Houghton is in agreement with me on this score. The proposed amendments are of a far-reaching nature. I believe, however, that the proposed legislation does in some respects reflect the position which in practice is already the position in the normal marriage. However, the amendments are of a far-reaching nature and affect a large number of people, indeed all married couples.

There are, however, provisions about which I feel uncertain. In this regard I think of, for example, the accrual provision. I should like to hear the opinions of other hon. members before coming to a final conclusion in this regard. It is at this point where I associate myself with the hon. member Mr. Schutte. I want to suggest that the Bill first be considered by a Select Committee of Parliament before being submitted to the House for passing.

Mr. Chairman, during the course of my reply I shall eventually get to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North. However, I wish to refer once again to yesterday’s debate and reply to the speeches of hon. members to whom I have not yet replied.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred with appreciation to the role played by the training section of the Department, particularly as regards courses relating to the civil court work of magistrates. It is very interesting to note that 15 officials attended the course in civil court work at the Legal Training Branch in 1981, and one of them was from the platteland. In 1982, 18 officials attended the course, and six were from the platteland. The aim is to extend this course from the present one course per year to two courses per year from 1983 and to lengthen the course to six weeks. The intention is to adapt the two courses so as to concentrate specifically on the magistrate who has little or no experience of civil court work. This will involve the magistrate in the rural areas to a greater extent than is the case at present and it will enable him to return appropriate verdicts. We are receiving very positive feedback in this regard. This links up with the standpoint I adopted yesterday, viz. that we should ensure that the quality of the administration of justice in the rural areas is of the highest possible standard. However, there is something I should like to add. While civil work is not yet regarded as part of the formular in the assessment of legal work, it seems to me that there is a sound case for the incorporation of civil legal work into this formula for the purposes of assessing the legal work performed at a centre. This would mean that hon. members could be asked to request their former colleagues please not to draw out their court cases artificially in order to fit into the formula. This could only have a detrimental effect on legal costs. However, I leave it at that.

The hon. member for Waterkloof referred to the once mighty department which is now being stripped of its powers. However, I think this is putting it a little strongly, since it should be noted that although the South African Police and the Prison Service previously fell under the same ministry, they have not been part of the department itself for many years. The redistribution of duties at ministerial level must not be seen as being purely and simply a breaking down of the powers of this Department. In fact, the Prison Service is now part of a new Department of Justice and in this regard the department has expanded tremendously. Hon. members should not be surprised if the department expands even further.

The transfer of the Internal Security Branch only affects approximately eight officials at this stage. Although the Department of Justice is relinquishing its responsibility for security legislation, the transfer of the task in question will have little if any effect on the right of existence of the Department of Justice as such. In fact, I want to qualify my previous statement by saying that it will have no influence on the right of existence of the Department of Justice as such.

Of course, there was also the administration of the Liquor Act and the Deeds Office.

It is true that the liquor and deeds sections have also been transferred to other departments as a result of rationalization. However, I could also just mention that we have identified a whole series of laws which, functionally speaking, do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Department and which are at present part of the rationalization process under consideration. There are about 30 of these laws. I wish to place on record that I have already looked at these laws, but the arrangement is that after the Department has considered these laws in cooperation with the Commission, they will get back to me. However, I am not bound by the Commission’s recommendations. In fact, I do not agree with all the standpoints with regard to particular legislation. However, this is a matter for sober and objective consideration.

While I am dealing with these points, I want to make use of this opportunity of addressing a few words to Mr. Bosch who up to now has worked with us in various capacities and will in future act as Director of Security Legislation in the new ministry of Law and Order. I have had dealings with many legal experts recently, and Mr. Bosch is definitely one of the many extremely capable people whom I have met and with whom I have worked. I wish to say to him that we shall miss him, that we know that he is well equipped to undertake his task with great responsibility. We wish him and the officials who may be transferred with him, every success, but this is a matter to which the Director-General, the hon. the Minister of Law and Order and I will still be attending to. Of course, we will not easily part with our officials! Of course, I say this in lighter vein, since what is important is that the cause be served.

Yesterday I made some reference to standpoints put by the hon. member for Ermelo. However, there was one particular point which he raised, which concerned the question of recruitment. It is true that the Commission for Administration is the body primarily responsible for recruiting campaigns such as visits to schools, military camps, universities, etc. As recruitment agent for the entire Public Service, the Commission also carries out its recruitment in co-operation with representatives from head office and our sub-offices. Such representatives are used to provide specialist inputs in regard to recruitment. Heads of offices—and now I am referring to magistrates, etc.—also provide information on an informal basis concerning the Department’s opportunities for promotion, its work, its task, etc. In this regard our magistrates are performing an enormous task, in the cities as well as in the rural areas. Accordingly I wish to thank them for their contribution in this regard and to encourage them to continue projecting their image in the interests of expansion and recruitment. They enjoy a special status and are therefore able to serve the Department of Justice in this way.

†The hon. member for King William’s Town again raised the question of rape and referred to the written reply to his Question No. 509. For the sake of the record I should like to quote that reply again—

I should now like to add that the Law Commission is empowered to invite comment through questionnaires or memoranda or by way of personal appearances before the Commission. The Commission will most likely invite public contributions. I therefore now call upon newspaper editors and all interested parties, bodies and persons, to be alert to the fact that they will be invited to submit their views and proposals to the Law Commission.

This is also my reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow. Let me just say, in lighter vein, that I felt a measure of relief, somewhat similar to that felt by the hon. member for Houghton yesterday afternoon, when he actually ventured to define this offence. I did, however, notice that he omitted the possibility of aggressive courting. [Interjections.]

Is that what you go for?

There is a very thin dividing line.

Yes, a very thin line. Be that as it may, I do think that this action on our part will satisfy the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for King William’s Town. In view of the gravity of this offence—and it is a very serious matter—let me just say that if hon. members feel called upon to do so, they may even submit their proposals to the Law Commission from today onwards, I shall request the chairman and other members to give the matter priority.

*The hon. member for Roodepoort asked me, inter alia, what the position with regard to attorneys appointed by the State Attorney was—in fact, attorneys as well as advocates, I presume. His argument was that fees should also be reviewed. At this stage my information is that attorneys appointed by State Attorneys to work for them as correspondents or to do other work, are indeed remunerated according to the prevailing scale. Of course, we cannot change this. However, I did, in fact, determine that in some cases there is a fixed arrangement with particular correspondents in particular towns or particular areas in terms of which the correspondent concerned receives all the work from the State Attorney. Nevertheless, I am interested in the argument of the hon. member for Roodepoort and I intend asking the Department to go into this matter. While I am dealing with this point, I should also just like to add that we shall review more frequently fees which are payable to various bodies from time to time—and here I am not referring to cases where law societies, bars, etc. are the mouthpieces, but only about statutory fees payable by the Department, etc. We shall in fact now be trying to bring the position into line with the latest developments as soon as possible. This is quite a wide field, but we are looking at the situation. I just want to emphasize that I am not talking about attorneys’ fees or advocates fees. I am only talking in general about fees with which we may be involved.

The hon. member for Pretoria West referred, inter alia, to the question of tape recorders which should be made available to judges. My information—and it is correct— is that dictaphones are made available to registrars of the Supreme Court for use by judges. The requests of all the judges who asked for dictaphones to be provided for them have been complied with. This is my information. If this has perhaps not been done in certain cases, or if there has perhaps been a delay somewhere, the Department would be only too pleased to be notified and give immediate attention to this through its official who has been specifically designated to attend to Supreme Court matters, Mr. Eugene van Rensburg. However, our information is that a total of 84 dictaphones have already been distributed for use by judges. This is an indication that most are already in possession of dictaphones.

This brings me to the position concerning libraries. The hon. member asked us to supply judges with legal books which they can use at home. Of course, the hon. member is correct. Legal books are as important to the judge as, I presume, the Parliamentary library is to members of Parliament. They are at the heart of the activities of the Supreme Court and a judge cannot function without them. That is why we have a departmental library committee which deliberates annually concerning the purchase and distribution of new publications to Supreme Courts and other sub-offices of the Directorate. The Appeal Court and each provincial division is represented in this committee by a judge, who is a fully-fledged member of the committee, and in this regard considerable improvements have already been effected. However, this matter has been raised previously. It was not possible to give effect to it, but I can see nothing wrong with the committee being asked to consider it once again. The cost involved will, of course, be extremely high, particularly when we consider that the library of the Palace of Justice is also included in the restoration in the sense that it is envisaged that facilities will be established which will make it possible for judges and other researchers to work there with greater ease and privacy. I think the hon. member will understand this. Perhaps he has the present circumstances in mind, circumstances which, I hasten to say, are not very satisfactory. This, then, is that we should like to give our attention to. That disposes of that situation.

While we are dealing with the Palace of Justice, I should just like to refer once again to the hon. member for Waterkloof. I wish to assure the hon. member that we shall carry out this planning with the greatest possible circumspection. I shall also ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development to see to it that the plans be made available so that everyone who has an interest in them, may comment. I think this will perhaps meet the hon. member’s objections.

I should appreciate it very much.

I shall pass them on to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Houghton made specific inquiries about three people.

†Two of the persons who are at present being held under preventive detention in terms of section 10(1)(a)bis are self-confessed terrorists.

You are talking about Tatsa and Mtabela, are you?

Yes, they are both self-confessed terrorists.

Is that why you have kept one of them in solitary confinement for two years?

No. What is more, those people would have been prosecuted but for the fact that there are other accused who would have testified for the State but are, after their subsequent conviction, refusing to do so. Those people are self-confessed terrorists, and it is very clear to us that they will proceed with their intended aim of disrupting law and order and threatening the safety of the State.

Are you going to keep them locked up then? The one was charged and found not guilty. I do not know about the other one.

So that is the situation as far as that is concerned.

So how long are you going to keep them locked up?

Let me just add that the case of Mr. Issel is at present under consideration.

Well I hope you let him go on the 15 th.

This brings me to the hon. member for Mooi River and his remarks concerning stock theft. My time has almost expired, but I should just like to indicate how we dealt with the question of stock theft. We requested the Attorney-General to consider the gravity of this matter. The Attorney-General of Natal has, inter alia, already issued directives to prosecutors pointing out the seriousness of the matter, as well as the possible implementation of particular measures in the Criminal Procedure Act and the Stock Theft Act. However, I have gone even further. Over the past four months I have notified the various agricultural societies of these steps and I have received letters of acknowledgement from them. As far as the Prison Service is concerned too, we have singled out particular areas where remission of sentence will not be permitted. As far as remission of sentence in general is concerned, we have referred remission of sentence for this kind of crime to a special inquiry.

In the few minutes still at my disposal, I just want to tell the hon. member Mr. Schutte that he made an extremely praiseworthy speech. We shall study it, and on the basis of those studies we shall decide what to do.

To the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North—this also applies to the hon. members for Houghton and Waterkloof—I wish to say with regard to the report of this commission of inquiry that we are going to study the arguments which have been raised in this debate in respect of this matter. I think that at this stage I can give the hon. member the assurance that we shall not do anything before the recommendations of the commission have been referred to a Select Committee. We also still want to deliberate concerning what the terms of reference of such a Select Committee will be. In this regard we shall also take due cognizance of the points to which the hon. member referred and which he thinks need to be worked on further. The hon. member must therefore accept my assurance that we will not do anything without having a Select Committee investigate the matter. What the terms of reference of such a Select Committee will be, we shall have to decide after we have studied this debate. Is the hon. member for Houghton satisfied with this?

Well, I have no option.

This brings me, in the final two or three minutes at my disposal, to the discussion we had with one another concerning the whole question of security. I wish to avail myself of the opportunity to wish my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, every success in the handling of this extremely complex and delicate matter. We shall be dealing with review and so on in an administrative capacity. It was really an experience to have been involved in this and it demanded the greatest measure of responsibility on the part of the officials of the Department of Justice and myself. I wish to give the Committee the assurance that we tried at all times to look at all cases soberly and objectively and that we made decisions to the best of our ability in this regard. Our standpoint was that the rule of law, as interpreted by Dicey and other lawyers, is a principle rather than an inflexible rule which has to be obeyed, as Mr. Justice Schreiner once put it. What we strove for was that the rights or freedom of the citizen should be interfered with by the State only if the courts find that the citizen has violated existing legal provisions. This is the ideal situation and we saw it as such. Our premise is also …

Habeas corpus is just a principle.

What do you call it?

It is a very important principle.

It is vital to any democracy, but it has gone here.

It is very important, I concede that immediately.

*Our standpoint was that only in highly exceptional cases could this ideal goal be deviated from. We also fully realised that we should have to have solid grounds for action. In this regard I pointed out to the Committee yesterday afternoon that we were of the opinion that the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition had endorsed that standpoint. We pointed out to you that Prof. Mathews had supported it. The author Arthur Suzman once wrote—

Yes, but you are quoting him right out of context. You know that his whole thesis is that you have got to have habeas corpus.

We realized that as far as principles are concerned we have to operate here on a correct basis, viz. that such an exception is, in fact, permissible. Why? To preserve the security of the State. In recent years the security of the State has acquired another dimension. It is no longer simply a matter of the territory, the population, political independence, but is also a matter of Government authority as we know it and the particular form of government within the framework in which goverment authority is excercised. It concerns the fact that that form of government is the only medium or vehicle through which changes can be effected constitutionally. If there is no other reason why we should protect this form of government with specific measures, I suggest to those hon. members who are interested in reform and so on, that this mechanism should be protected. Mathews points out that even in the most liberal democracy, it is a sophisticated form of suicide if this is relinquished. In this regard I also refer to a work by Dr. Ignatius Rautenbach. I wish to put it to the Committee that in a particular State it could also happen that a changeover from one form of government to another is planned and carried out by the government and that the process of change as such, as an aspect of State security, must be protected. We are living in such a phase. That is why, as far as I am concerned, I did not have any misgivings that we were deviating here from acknowledged ideal standpoints; rather, I felt that we would be on solid ground if we were, in fact, to do so. We accepted as a principle that activities which threaten the internal security of the Republic, in so far as circumstances allow, ought to be combated as crimes, in other words, that they should be tried in the courts. Our premise was that the exception should be a real exception. I wish to refer the hon. member to the fact that, for example, we have drastically reduced the number of restricted persons in recent years. A year ago there were 155. At present the number is 102, and I agreed recently, after serious consideration when these cases were reviewed, that a further 12 should be derestricted. In other words, we considered this matter with circumspection. As far as these special measures were concerned, the premise was that it is no use closing the stable door after the horses has bolted. The question I wish to ask hon. members is this: If the hon. members opposite wish to criticize the State, why do they not familiarize themselves with the form, the existence, the nature and the extent of the threat and then decide how the threat may best be averted? From time to time opportunities to gain information have been made available to hon. members. Have they availed themselves of this? Or are they at present using the technique of not arguing about the fact that we need this legislation, but instead, attacking its implementation? In other words, the hon. members are avoiding the discussion of principle concerning the vital need for these exeptional measures.

You never give us any reasons for any banning.

You who condemn the security measures must also place yourselves in our position, and if you ask for the information we have, I am convinced that it will be possible to furnish you with responsible information. But those hon. members have never placed themselves in a position to receive such information.

At least give the chap the chance to answer them.

Let us just look for a moment at the handling of these special measures. It is true that special powers were entrusted to the Minister of Justice. It is also true that the Minister of Justice has been at the centre of controversy on many occasions as a result of these powers. My standpoint has been that when I have had to excercise such an executive power, I had to weigh up the interests of the State against the interests of the community, as well as the interests of the individual against the interests of the community. I do not think it could be taken amiss of me if I say that in this regard I often had to reflect seriously and at length, and that in this regard I received little understanding from the Opposition for having in fact, done things this way. When we weigh up these interests against one another, the aspect of fairness is necessarily at issue. Is it fair that an individual should be deprived of his freedom or be restricted, or should be removed from his family for a time? Or, in contrast, is it fair that an individual or a group of individuals should be allowed to prepare for a revolution? Is it fair towards the community to act when the revolution is already in our living-rooms? Is it fair towards the individual or the group to allow him to organize the breaking of million windows in schools or is it fair to the taxpayer— I am talking about the Brown, Black and White taxpayer who has had to foot the bill for this in the past—to prevent this? Is it fair to us, we who have been labouring for many years within the framework of the constitution to achieve a fair dispensation for all— you are taking part in that process with us— while a few individuals outside that process aim to create chaos and are, in fact, sporadically trying to achieve this.

That is why, as far as I am concerned, I had no qualms about taking preventive action. Therefore when we took action after the decision had been taken, the question arose as to whether we had dealt fairly with the individual cases. I am satisfied that we have in fact, done so. The hon. member for Houghton asked me for information, and how often have I not given it? She is aware that whenever she asked whether a particular person was being detained, I went to the trouble of obtaining the information for her. She is aware that in specific circumstances I went out of my way to ensure special medical attention. The inspectors of detainees regularly reported to me and when there were complaints about food in respect of, for example, section 6 detainees, the inspectors visited those detainees and negotiated with the police to such an extent in fact, that we have perhaps begun to inhibit the police. Accordingly I warned the inspectors not to inhibit the police, since they too have a task to perform. But to ensure that everything was fair, the inspectors did, in fact, do this. Food from cafés was served, and so on. We even went so far as to ensure that the practices of professional people were, in fact, still being taken care of. These are the steps we took.

In conclusion: I shall in due course relinquish these powers. Things have occurred which one wishes had rather not taken place. I refer, for example, to the Aggett case, and I want to leave it at that. However, the fact remains that this was an extreme exception. I wish to thank the officials who were involved, since they acted with a great deal of circumspection, and after the decision to act had been taken, fairness was always the norm in the way each case was handled.

In conclusion, I wish to convey my cordial thanks to Mr. Coetzer, the Director-General of the Department of Justice, Mr. Van Niekerk, whose first budget this is, as well as all the other officials who were involved in the staff work for this Vote, for their contribution.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly touch on one aspect of the hon. the Minister’s speech, namely his explanation to the hon. member for Houghton as regards the circumstances of the two detainees. The one detainee, Tatsa, according to the hon. the Minister is a self-confessed terrorist and that suffices as far as his explanation is concerned. The hon. the Minister knows that this individual has spent two years in solitary confinement, then was tried and found not guilty and discharged, then sentenced for refusing to give evidence and now again is in detention in terms of section 10(1)(a)bis. What possible future does the hon. the Minister envisage for this individual? Is the fact that in the hon. the Minister’s view he is a self-confessed terrorist sufficient to keep him in detention indeterminately? Could the hon. the Minister give us an indication of the circumstances which would have to arise to enable him to release this man or to deal with him in accordance with the normal procedure?

*The hon. member for Verwoerdburg got excited about the accusation from this side of the House that in many respects we should compare our security legislation to that which applies in Russia.

*He was very upset that we compared our situation with that of Russia. I want to ask the hon. member, the hon. the Minister and any other member on that side of the House whether they can give us one example of a country in the civilized world where the banning provisions apply or are in operation. I am not talking about the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Can they give us one example where those banning provisions are in operation?

What about Israel?

They are not. That is why the hon. members on the other side are not able to give us an example. That is why it is embarrassing for any South African to try and defend those provisions. They are indefensible. No-one in the civilized world believe in them, accepts them, applies them. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg referred to a quotation from the views of an eminent English Judge to the effect that the suspension of normal legal safeguards must sometimes be accepted for the purpose of the great protection of the public. Obviously, in isolation, that must be a part of a judgment which the honourable judge gave. I have not seen the judgment, but I can almost guarantee the hon. member that there is an addition to those words, namely that appropriate and adequate safeguards must exist. This is the whole crux of the matter. The same criticism applies to the views which the hon. the Minister expressed in his speech yesterday. He referred to the author, Prof. Mathews, and also tried to link my hon. Leader to the sentiments as he sees them which are expressed by Prof. Mathews to the effect that these two gentlemen appeared to support the status quo.

No, you have hold of the wrong end of the stick.

He did quote from page 310 of Prof. Mathews’ book without, if I recall correctly, quoting the section and the sentences in which Prof. Mathews in very strong language condemns the present setup. It is correct that Prof. Mathews is of the view that in a changing society one cannot switch over from an oppressive system, which we have at the moment, to a liberal system within a very short time. He has written on this aspect in a very interesting publication called South Africa: Dilemmas of Evolutionary Change, edited by Slabbert and Opland. On page 187 he states his view—I think this would probably reflect his view correctly and the hon. the Minister will notice that that does not agree with his views as set out yesterday—as follows—

That is the view of Prof. Mathews. The hon. the Minister then said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was using the jargon of Prof. Mathews. That may be correct, but the jargon of Prof. Mathews is quite clearly that the present banning provisions are totally unacceptable. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has set out this party’s view on security legislation on many occasions. I wish to refer to just two aspects of his speech in February of this year. I quote from Hansard (1 February, col. 24) as follows—

That is the position as it stands. Neither Prof. Mathews nor this party would agree and could possibly accept the banning provisions as they stand at the moment. In col. 25 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says the following—

That is the position as we see it. There is no possible chance of this party accepting or supporting banning provisions because the right to ban vests solely in the Minister at the moment without anyone being given any reasons, without the detained person himself being able to find out on what case the order is based. The power has been used to deal with opponents of the Nationalist Party. Can the hon. member for Mossel Bay tell me …

I will tell you. Why is the hon. member for Houghton not being detained yet?

You try it. You would not dare.

Can the hon. member tell me why the people are banned, on what basis are they banned? It is that aspect, namely the fact that the discretionary power of a Minister, of a politician, is all that is necessary, that must be condemned and that will always be condemned. We are in a stage of transition, as the hon. the Minister has mentioned. The hon. the Minister has looked at Prof. Mathews book where Prof. Mathews indicates that some and sometimes strong security measures will have to remain. He says on page 310, for example—

There is, as I see it, no evidence that there is a desire on the part of the Government to gradually import the principle of legality into our security legislation. In fact, we are probably going to debate a Bill tonight on demonstrations outside court buildings which does not seek to introduce a programme of legality but in fact takes it away in a more drastic way. We are moving away from the suggestions made by Prof. Mathews.

If a man acts in terms of the law passed by Parliament, is that illegal?

No, that is rule by law, not rule of law.

No, he is talking about illegality, not the rule of law.

If there is one member who should not start talking about the rule of law, then it is the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The same goes for the hon. member for Pretoria West, because in the view of that hon. member and of the hon. member for Mossel Bay the requirements of the rule of law are met when this Parliament passes legislation. That they equate to the rule of law. That is the almost primitive view of the rule of law that we have heard from hon. members on that side. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat lead me astray to such an extent that I thought we were dealing with an entirely different topic to that of Prisons, which this debate is supposed to be about.

To begin with, I heartily congratulate the Commissioner of Prisons, Gen. Otto, and his staff on the positive report submitted to us. I say that it is a positive report and that it attests to a great deal of dedication and efficiency on the part of the staff of the Prison Service specifically because the report mentions, inter alia, the fact that the service also has to deal with problems arising from a shortage of staff. The shortage of staff during the year under review had a hampering effect in the case of the Prison Service as well. Terminations of service increased from 1 678 to 1 994 while appointments decreased by 502. There was a decrease from 8,37% to 8% in the recruitment of staff. This staff shortage can be attributed directly to the fact that the economic climate in the Republic has been favourable recently and that the competition on the labour market has become keener. This state of affairs gives cause for concern when prisoners cannot be kept constantly productive. Apart from the seasonal phenomenon which is linked to the economic situation in the Republic, I believe that we have here a manifestation of the general shortage of manpower in the country. That is why we have even more reason to express gratitude and appreciation to the Prison Service for the excellent service rendered by its staff.

The service has also had to deal with another immense problem, viz. that of the over-population of prisons. At the end of the year under review there was cell accommodation for 75 576 people. This accommodation was over-occupied practically throughout. Steps have in fact been taken in which everyone concerned with the practice of criminal law, is involved and will have to become more involved, to keep the prison population as low as possible. These efforts have already had a considerable amount of success. However, it is and remains extremely important that certain classes of criminals should be kept out of circulation; in other words, people who should in fact be detained, should not simply be let loose on the community because of the limited accommodation available. This function of the Prison Service should not be detrimentally effected because of limited cell accommodation.

Under these circumstances, the willingness of the Prison Service to open the prisons to visitors such as members of this Committee who were privileged recently to visit the prisons on more than one occasion, is appreciated even more. One could not help gaining the impression that the Prison Service does not seek to hide anything at all and that in fact they have nothing to hide or about which they need to feel ashamed. On the contrary, one was impressed by the high standard which is being maintained throughout. The Prison Service can rightly be proud of, inter alia, assisting the national States in respect of the planning and establishment of their own Prison Services, as well as assisting the independent States in respect of the training of staff. The Prison Service also has reason to be proud of its effective organization and the high standard of its educational services, social services, psychological services, health services and the spiritual care of prisoners. All this is even more remarkable when one considers the problems with which the service has to contend.

The most important task of the Prison Service remains the safe detention of prisoners. In this regard it was pleasing to learn from the report that there was a significant decrease in the number of escapes. There were no less than 227 fewer escapes during the year under review than during the previous year, despite a considerable increase in the prison population. This decrease in the number of escapes can only be ascribed to the endeavours and efforts that are continually being made to ensure greater efficiency and effectiveness.

I believe that this report, which I have described as a positive and sound one, was only made possible by the fact that the attitude of the staff of the Prison Service is sound. I believe that the staff of the Prison Service are not simply concerned about remuneration, if at all, but that they also show the necessary compassion in respect of those entrusted to their care and that the rehabilitation factor also enjoys the necessary priority and attention. If it were only a question of remuneration, if it were simply a question of getting one’s full pound of flesh, to put in that way, one would expect an entirely different result to the one finds at all our prisons. At the prisons one is impressed throughout by the benevolent attitude of the commanding officers and all the members of the service towards the prisoners. I think it is fitting that on this occasion we should pay tribute to the Prison Service for this.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. member for Mossel Bay. He gave a very good exposition of the work of the department and I hope he will forgive me for concentrating on only one aspect of it, namely prison farms.

It is also a great pleasure for me to speak on this Vote because the John Vorster Training College of the South African Prison Service is situated in my town. It goes without saying that I know the people of this department very well. I should also like to pay tribute to this department this afternoon, and I want to congratulate Gen. Otto and his staff on the important and good work they do. They are saddled with one of the less pleasant duties in our society. This says a great deal for the efficient, wonderful and purposeful way in which they carry out their task. I have also been privileged when, for example, foreign visitors have visited the prison in Kroonstad, to hear the comments of these foreign visitors who are acquainted with prison departments abroad. I have also been privileged to see how highly they regard the South African Prison Service and I think the South African Prison Service serves as an example to many prison services throughout the world.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the whole purpose and function of prison farms. It may be a good idea to establish firstly how and why these farms came into existence. From 1939 and particularly after 1945, because of the rapid growth in the prison population, the Prison Service began to experience a problem regarding the accommodation of prisoners, particularly in the over populated urban prisons. We must also not lose sight of the fact that over the years and, in fact, to this very day, a large number of prisoners have served and are serving such short sentences that they cannot be included in meaningful treatment and training programmes. However, it is necessary for these people to be kept busy in a constructive way. In the ’fifties the Cabinet came to the conclusion that prison farms and the outpost system were the most suitable solutions to this problem. An agricultural division was then established in the Prison Service and this entire system of prison farms has been systematically extended.

At the present time the Prison Service has 19 prison farms covering 39 000 hectares. Seven of these prison farms are in the Transvaal, two are in the Orange Free State, three are in Natal and seven are in the Cape Province. In the main, agricultural activities such as the production of vegetables, milk, stock feed, livestock and fruit are carried out on these farms. Approximately 5 500 people work on these farms every day and many of them also receive positive training. In some cases intensive training is given in some or other facet of farming. This training is provided for the prisoners by 24 agriculturists and 84 agricultural technicians employed by the department. This, in a nutshell, is the origin and the present extent of prison farms. I am convinced that these farms have become an indispensable facet of the whole set-up of the Prison Service. This is mainly for two reasons. On the one hand there is the therapeutic value of training, the constructive employment of prisoners and the meaningful use and application of their labour. On the other hand, and as a result of this, there is a reasonable degree of self-sufficiency which obviously results in fewer demands being made on the Treasury.

I want to go on to say that this undertaking in which prisoners are kept constructively occupied would appear to be a resounding success in the positive treatment of prisoners. Not only does constructive work done out of doors and in the open air have a beneficial effect on prisoners but it also definitely facilitates rehabilitation. In addition, those prisoners who show an aptitude for and interest in farming, as well as those who after their release could be employed in the farming sector, are selected for specialized training in the various facets of farming. It goes without saying that this can play an indirect role in promoting our agricultural economy in general.

Mr. Chairman, I have already referred to the therapeutic value of labour. Labour plays a central role in any rehabilitation policy. The therapeutic value of labour in the prison situation can never be underestimated. I also believe that this can be seen as one of the most important reasons why we do not have bloody prison riots in South Africa as is the case in many other countries. The devil will always find work for idle hands. When people are kept busy in a meaningful and constructive way and in reasonably pleasant surroundings it is unlikely that the tense atmosphere that can lead to such riots will build up.

In conclusion I should like to refer to the reasonable degree of self-sufficiency of the South African Prison Service in respect of certain products. This means that the detention costs per prisoner can be kept as low as possible because farm products of good quality can be cultivated in an economic way for prison rations. Let me add immediately however that the establishment and running of prison farms is in no way in competition with the free market system and that there are no plans to change this. The use and application of the available labour and the training of people in the agricultural industry must of necessity stimulate production. Although the Prison Service is to a large extent self-sufficient in respect of certain rations for prisoners, a considerable number of products must and will always have to be purchased on the open market. It may be interesting to mention a few of the products being cultivated. For example, during the past financial year 2 314 tons of meat was produced, which is approximately 60% prison ration requirements. During the same period 3,4 million litres of milk were produced which is approximately 40% of prison ration requirements. A total of 15 500 tons of mixed vegetables were produced which meets approximately 80% of prison ration requirements. During the same financial year 19 000 dozen eggs were produced. Produce valued at more than R4 500 000 million was supplied to prison institutions. That is why I say that it seems as if the prison farms are being utilized very successfully and that they are a real asset not only to the prison authorities but also to our country in general, and I should like to suggest that consideration be given to extending the farm system. I think this would be greatly to our advantage.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Kroonstad on his most productive contribution to this debate. I had the privilege to reread the speech he made during the discussion of the Prisons Amendment Bill. I found it most informative.

I should also like to associate the CP with the wonderful ideas expressed by the hon. member for Mossel Bay and I shall return in a moment to the aspects he discussed.

As far as prison farms are concerned I note that escapes outside prison actually constitute the largest percentage of all escapes. However, on page 39 of the report it is stated that escapes actually take place when prisoners are being transported to hospital and the like. No specific reference is made to escapes from prison farms. This may possibly be one negative aspect of prison farms but I do not think one can argue much with the hon. member about this.

I want to say that this report which has been tabled on the Prison Service is a comprehensive and interesting one. On behalf of the CP I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department most sincerely in this regard and I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the CP is 100% behind him in his administration of our prisons.

Mr. Chairman, the report is made even more interesting by the fact that hon. members were also privileged to be able to visit certain prisons, as the hon. member for Mossel Bay pointed out. In this regard I am referring specifically to our visit to Sonderwater about 18 months ago. The hon. member for Houghton also referred appreciatively to that visit. What she had to say about the meals provided there is recorded in Hansard.

In view of the fact that hon. members of the official Opposition so frequently launch the strongest and most vehement attacks on conditions in prisons, I should like to quote the hon. member for Houghton a passage from Proverbs.

†Unfortunately, the English translation is not quite as appropriate as the Afrikaans translation.

Are you referring to the food that she got or the food that the prisoners got?

She tasted the food that the prisoners got and she was very happy with it.

I suppose it was sauce tartare.

As I have said, the quotation is unfortunately not quite as appropriate in English as it is in Afrikaans and she must excuse me when I quote it to her in Afrikaans.

*I am quoting from Proverbs 24, verses 24 and 25—

It is frequently said that a prison can hardly be a successful rehabilitation centre, but when one tests the atmosphere of an institution like Sonderwater one finds that it seems like that of a hospital, not only because of the absolute cleanliness and neatness of the various rooms, change-rooms and particularly the toilets but specifically because of the businesslike, sympathetic and compassionate attitude of the staff, to which the hon. member for Mossel Bay also referred. Take the various workshops as an example. Show me a factory or industry in South Africa where there is more space per worker, where there is more air and light in the work place, where there are cleaner floors and where the workmen in their overalls look neater. This is really an achievement. I should like to quote a further passage from Proverbs. Above the bed of a prisoner I noticed an English text from Proverbs. I quote from Proverbs 30, verses 18 and 19—

Mr. Chairman, just note the variety of activities in which the Department of Prisons is involved. The hon. member for Kroonstad referred to some of these activities. I should also like to mention a few. The report illustrates the realization of the concept of a constellation of States. Take for example the chapter on political relations from which it appears that assistance was given to Ciskei, to Bophuthatswana, to KwaZulu and to other national States. Also note the in-service training programme in which Bophuthatswana and Venda were also involved and from which they also benefited.

With reference to the information division and liaison services, the 24 hours liaison services, dealt with 57% more inquiries from the Press and broadcasting media than during the previous year. The question of visits to prisons, the problems with the Press and the criticism in this connection are effectively refuted by the facts in this report. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can use his influence with the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs to ensure that the Press cease publishing stories that there are a hundred different laws they have to consult before they can write a report. Perhaps we should have one law dealing with the Press. The Steyn report can be the foundation of such a law. Do not be afraid of the Press. In any case, they are no longer national; they are more progressive. They are an embarrassment to the hon. the Minister.

It is an objective reason you are giving!

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the morale of the staff and the training of persons as braille transcribers. It was interesting to note that some long-term prisoners are typing magazine articles in braille for the enjoyment of persons who have to forgo so many privileges in life.

The fifth aspect I want to touch on is the progress made in the field of research, particularly the bringing into use of a new measuring device with an accuracy level of 92,2% to determine into which of three categories of psychopath a prisoner falls.

Taken as a whole, the Prison Service is an organization of which South Africa can be justly proud, in spite of the tremendous staff shortage already referred to. We fully support the hon. the Minister and his Department in this responsible work.

There has also been an improvement in the disturbing incidence of escapes to which the hon. member for Mossel Bay referred.

Mr. Chairman, I want in conclusion to refer to the remark the hon. the Minister made on 16 September 1981 regarding the appointment of the Krügel Committee. I understand the Krügel Committee is actually a permanent committee to investigate various aspects which are a combination of Justice and Prison Service matters and also to investigate alternative forms of imprisonment. These aspects will then be implemented in the various departments by an interdepartmental committee. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what progress has been made with these investigations.

On 24 March 1982 the hon. the Minister also mentioned a body to investigate the incidence of and tendency towards crimes of violence in South Africa. It is probably too early to report on this but perhaps the hon. the Minister could inform the Committee on the progress made in this connection.

In conclusion I just want to repeat that the CP has sympathetic understanding for the way in which this Department treats these pitiful members of our society.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to congratulate the hon. member for Brakpan on making a positive contribution once again for a change.

Mr. Chairman, I visited the prison on Robben Island with the Justice group. I also saw the hon. member for Houghton there and she looked very happy. My immediate and overriding reaction was to take my hat off to the Prison Service in South Africa. This has been the case every time I have visited a prison and I have been doing so for many years now. As a judge’s clerk I visited prisons for the first time in 1956 with Mr. Justice Potgieter when he went to inspect prisons. I also visited prisons later on as an attorney and as a deputy sheriff and, of course, since I became an MP, I have visited prisons in season and out of season. Every time I have visited a prison I have said to myself: We in South Africa can be proud of our Prison Service. What is more, we in South Africa can be extremely grateful that there are people who are prepared to concern themselves about and serve these unfortunate people. It is not easy to work with problem people under such difficult circumstances and it requires a great deal of one.

I should like to analyse and elucidate on an important aspect in the life of a prisoner, namely what becomes of him or her when he or she is released from prison. Such a prisoner has had a hard time. He has served his sentence but what becomes of him when he is released? In this regard the prison authorities also render an excellent service. Let us analyse it more closely.

Generally speaking, efforts must be made to rehabilitate prisoners while they are still in prison. However, this aim of rehabilitation must be seen in the correct light. It is not only far-fetched but also impractical to send people who have committed crimes against society, who are unacceptable to society, and who have difficult personal characteristics, to prison and then hope that the prison authorities will make new people out of such prisoners. As far as the rehabilitation of offenders is concerned, one must bear in mind that a prison is certainly not the ideal place to rehabilitate a person. Why? It is because the prisoner did not go to prison voluntarily but was forced to do so by a court order. In addition the offender is taken—or to be more accurate, plucked— from society and placed in another sphere of life, a prison community with its own nature, its own character and its own authoritarian structure.

However, we must still bear in mind that, although reasonable success can be achieved with the rehabilitation of an offender in prison, it does not go without saying that a prisoner will continue his rehabilitation after his release. It should be remembered that the final word in the rehabilitation story of an offender is not written in the prison itself but in his life in the community after his release.

A prisoner’s possible success after his release from prison depends on three factors: In the first place it depends on his behaviour prior to his imprisonment; in the second place it depends on his rehabilitation in the prison itself; and, in the third place, it depends on his community life after his release from prison. The community therefore plays an indispensable role in the re-entry of the released prisoner into society. One can put this differently and more strongly: Society’s attitude towards the released prisoner is the deciding factor. Consciously or unconsciously, a tremendous responsibility rests on the shoulders of the community to assist the prisoner to adjust normally to his environment. The community has to assist in preventing such a person from reverting to a life of crime. The negative factors which brought him into conflict with the law and which exercised a negative effect on the prisoner in his community life, may still exist in the community or may re-emerge later.

Although the Prison Service is responsible for providing internal social services, it is not responsible for providing after-care services for released prisoners. That is asking too much. In paragraph 5.2 of the introduction to the annual report the following is stated—

The Prison Service nevertheless goes out of its way to assist in the resettlement in and integration of the released prisoner into the community. That is why in 1981 the Prison Service established a subdivision from the integration of the prisoner into the community at prison headquarters with the aim of planning after-care services for released prisoners properly. Thus specific attention is given to providing employment. It goes without saying that the obtaining of employment prior to their release is of the utmost importance to prisoners of all population groups. In co-operation with the prisoner employment is found for him. There is also co-operation with, inter alia, NICRO, the CMR, the Salvation Army, etc in this regard.

In conformity with this the standing orders of the Prison Service provide that every prisoner, except prisoners who for health reasons are not able to work in the open labour market or who are financially strong enough, are given every opportunity and assistance during their period of imprisonment to enable them to find a suitable job after release. It must be borne in mind that this in itself is a difficult task because in general employers consider these people a risk. For this reason the necessary guidance is also given to employers. Besides obtaining employment the need for suitable accommodation is one of the greatest needs of released prisoners on their release. The accommodation of a released prisoner plays an indispensable role in his integration into the community. This aspect cannot be overemphasized. Fortunately, private persons and bodies, welfare organizations and the family help to a great extent.

However, the Prison Service does even more. If necessary, a prisoner is provided with the necessary tools at State expense to continue his trade or profession after release or to start the trade or profession he learnt in prison. In addition, a prisoner receives material assistance, for example, gratuities to needy prisoners, transport tickets and clothing. While the prisoner is in prison, reconstruction services are rendered to his family and the community to prepare a place for him with a view to his release. None of us begrudges a prisoner the right to a new start. Whether he is going to stay on his feet depends not only on the rehabilitation and after-care services of the Prison Service but also on the attitude of society.

We can say without fear of contradiction that the Prison Service is meeting its responsibilities. We also take our hats off to our Prison Service for this and thank it for its efficient, humane and scientific service and approach.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be the next speaker after the hon. member for Bloemfontein East. As a political scientist as well as a former practising attorney and a former deputy sheriff, he is, in my opinion, a person who is extremely well qualified to participate in the discussion of this Vote.

At present we are considering the report and the Justice Vote, which includes the Prison Service. In considering this, I want to apply a few tests so as to determine how the Service is in fact fulfilling the duties with which it has been entrusted. I want to commence by drawing a few broad outlines only. After all, one cannot deal with this Service in full within the space of 10 minutes.

The Prison Service is concerned with man as a whole, that man who finds himself in unnatural circumstances. In dealing with these people in these unnatural circumstances it is extremely difficult, but essential, that civilized norms be maintained. For this reason it is of particular importance to me to take cognizance of the fact that the Prison Service is fully aware of this. For example, the Service has introduced “morale audit”. In this regard I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Brakpan, who referred to this. On page 18 of the report we read, and I quote—

In other words, the Service investigates itself in order to ascertain whether members of the Service have the satisfaction index which will influence their handling of and attitude towards the prisoners and in that way make them more positive. This is a very, very important aspect. In my opinion this is in fact the cardinal aspect, viz. the aspect of the attitude of the Prison Service; the attitude of the officer towards the prisoner. It becomes clear, when one consults the report, that the treatment which the prisoner receives is sympathetic but nevertheless scientific. Our treatment of the prisoner cannot be sympathetic only. What we are concerned with is in fact a prison. So we at least have to be scientific as well, because we must realize that the prisoner is a person who is, after all, repaying a debt to society. I must say that where the element of retribution has to be present, it must be as dignified and humane as possible. We must not make the error of thinking that a prison is a five-star hotel. That is not the idea. Furthermore, the position is that there must be discipline in such large institutions as prisons. The position is that when a prisoner reacts positively in a prison, it is essential to reward him, for example by granting him more privileges. The idea is that the privileges must be earned. There is no such thing as a person being automatically entitled to privileges. Nor is it correct that various classes of prisoners should be treated differently. I think that any prisoner who has been punished by law—irrespective of what law—is a criminal in terms of our legislation. He has no other rights and he ought to receive the same treatment as all other prisoners. When we come to the concept of rewarding acceptable behaviour and not rewarding unacceptable behaviour, that in fact reflects the discipline which applies and must apply in a prison.

In considering this, I want to make the statement that one of the important aspects of rewarding acceptable behaviour is the rehabilitating element inherent in doing so. Inherent therein is the rehabilitation of the prisoners, which in my opinion plays an important role in South Africa. Later on I shall indicate the important role which it plays. I think this is one of the reasons which makes it possible for us to say that we here in South Africa do have a civilized system applying in our Prison Service. Under this hon. Minister’s Department it has happened that more and better privileges are constantly being granted, which is important. There should be a constant investigation with regard to ways of improving the situation. To me one of the important aspects is that visits have now been changed. We were faced by a problem when visiting times for certain categories of prisoners were two visits of 45 minutes for two persons per month. That amounts to 90 minutes per month. In this respect we were faced with the problem that all visitors paid their visit on the first Sunday of the month. With all those visitors there, some of whom might have travelled from far afield, one faced the problem of facilities possibly being inadequate for everyone to be able to avail themselves of the visiting hours. This has been changed and at present we have more visiting time. We now have 30 visiting periods per annum, each of half an hour’s duration, but not more than five per month. I think this is an extremely important improvement and I think the hon. the Minister, the Department and the Prison Service ought to be complimented on this change. In my opinion this is an extremely humane approach, for now it is possible for people to come from far afield and one may for instance combine two visits of half an hour each. Now it is possible for people to have decent and long conversations, which in my opinion is necessary also as an element in the treatment of the prisoner.

It is also true, of course, that there are elements in prisons who have in fact been isolated from society because they do not fit into society. One may expect a prisoner to adopt a provocative attitude. Any well-balanced person will accept this. One must also realize that in that case it must be possible to take disciplinary steps. It is essential to have discipline and to have, for example, solitary confinement after officers have investigated the matter by means of a trial. I think this is very important. In this regard I want to make the statement that I am of the opinion that the fact that the members of the Prison Service wear uniforms and have military ranks, is a very important element in maintaining discipline. For that reason I personally am very pleased that this is the case and that this is the present position here. Furthermore, it is a fact that the Prison Service has many facets. There is specialized treatment which certain people undergo. People are being taught to read and to write. There is a literacy project. In my opinion the social and educational impact which this Department has on the outside society as a result of these specialized services, is not always recognized or appreciated and may sometimes even be denied. For my part I want to say that it is fulfilling, a major function for the country and our people. I personally appreciate it. The Prison Service is doing this in circumstances in which recidivism consequently is very slight. Having said this, I want to apply the test whether this Department is meeting the expectations one may have of it. I am unable to phrase this better than Winston Churchill did as long ago as 1912. I should like to quote a few passages in this regard. It is very interesting. He said …

Was this before or after he crossed the Apies River?

I think it was immediately afterwards. Crossing the Apies River might have cleared up his ideas. However, it still is a quotation which points the way. He said, and I quote—

Now, this is the point—

I think this is a very fine test which we can apply in respect of the Department. I want to say that I am of the opinion that they pass this test with flying colours. They pass the test as regards all facets which have been mentioned here and which have already been dealt with in this Committee. They pass the test because they have a sympathetic, scientific approach to the prisoners.

Consequently I want to conclude by saying that I want to convey my congratulations to the Department and, if I may do so, also with respect to the hon. the Minister. I think we have a Prison Service which is a show window for South Africa and I think that this Prison Service may rightly transfer its assistance on an international level to the developing States, because it sets an example which those people can follow.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that after all the praise that has been heaped on the Prisons Department, they will be strong enough to withstand a little criticism. [Interjections.] Oh yes, indeed, objective dispassionate criticism.

I want to say to the hon. member for Pretoria West that I do not agree with him that the new method of visits is an improvement. When I say that I do not agree with him, I am quoting prisoners, because they do not agree with it. They find that the new method in fact does not suit them at all and one of the prisoners pointed out to me that it in fact means that over a year they lose 20% of the time and that they have lost so many minutes over the whole year of the prison visit system. They do not like the new system at all. It might suit the authorities better but it does not suit the prisoners.

I think they have more time now.

Well, they do not think so. If one works it out, they had approximately 25 periods of three-quarters of an hour as against 30 half hours. I think if one works it out, one will find that it is not in fact an improvement in the system. I also believe that at Pretoria Central Prison visitors often came from overseas. Of the nine or ten men who are there some of them have families who have left the country and who are living overseas. They come out, say, once a year to see them. There was an arrangement that those visits were extra visits. They did not come off normal visiting time because of the extraordinary circumstances. These men could then still have local people visiting them in the normal visiting hours and the overseas visits were counted as extras. I understand that has been discontinued and they feel very sore about that. The information I have is that they have 30 half hour visits per year whereas they used to get 25 three-quarters of an hour visits per year. They reckon that they have lost 225 minutes over the whole year. Therefore, I wonder if we can go into that and see whether that is so and perhaps readjust the system. As the hon. the Minister can imagine, visits for a person locked up are really the life-savers. It is their only real contact with their families. The prisons system wants to maintain it and I am sure that this should be adjusted if it is very much of a new disadvantage which they are experiencing.

I was among the number of MP’s, together with my colleague, the hon. member for Green Point, who went on a visit to Robben Island and also to Pollsmoor. I want to say something about those two gaols. The administration seems to be in good hands. I want to say that right away. However, there are disadvantages. As far as Pollsmoor is concerned, about 25% of the people in Pollsmoor are awaiting trial prisoners. They have very special problems. The Department has problems in dealing with them. Many of them have to go in and out of court and many of them have to wait for months before they come to court for trial. It is very difficult to know what to do with these people in the meantime.

It is an inherent problem with prisoners.

I know that it is a big problem. However, something has to be done to solve it, because these people are locked up for months on end with nothing to do all day long. Even the exercise periods are apparently very difficult to organize. It comes to about 1 000 people as far as Pollsmoor is concerned. I am not talking about a handful of people; I am talking about 1 000 people who are awaiting trial all the time— in rotation, obviously. Therefore, something has to be done. They either have to be offered voluntary work which will keep them busy—one cannot make them do compulsory work if they are not convicted—or study facilities or something. However, to leave these people locked up all day long for months on end cannot be a satisfactory system. Therefore, I ask the hon. the Minister and the authorities to look into that. By the way, I do not know whether other hon. members who visited Robben Island had the same interesting experience, but in the Prison library, which seems to be well-equipped and well-run, I saw a poster on the wall. There were four pictures on the poster, namely those of M. M. Coetzee, Alan Paton, Athol Fugard and Nadine Gordimer. I asked the prisoner in charge whether those were their favourite authors and the answer was “yes, they were”. You will be interested to hear, Sir, that the most favourite author is Nadine Gordimer and her book Burger’s Daughter is the favourite book in the prison. I bet most of the hon. members here have not even read that book.

They haven’t heard of it.

Well, maybe! I do not know. I now want to say a word or two about the Prisons Advisory Release Board which was set up earlier this year in a law that we had passed. It is headed by a judge of the Supreme Court, with the function of advising the hon. the Minister about the general policy to be followed in regard to the release of prisoners and the basis upon which remission of sentence ought to be granted to different categories of prisoners. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Board has in fact been constituted, who its members are and whether he has yet requested the Board to carry on because it is on his request that the Board carries out its functions. Has he in fact done so? If so, is there a change in policy in regard to the release of prisoners and has the basis of remission of sentence been changed? Are there any new categories, for example? I personally believe that every case should be considered on merit. I do not believe that there should be entire categories excluded from the right to remission of sentence, unless it is a category of violent and dangerous persons.

Like psychopaths.

Well, psychopaths really should be in a mental home; they should not be in a prison. In any case, there are violent people who are not classified as psychopaths and obviously the public has to be protected from these people. However, I do not believe, for instance that prisoners— and I now use very technical terms—serving sentences for offences against the security of the State should be excluded from remission. Do I get a medal for that? I believe every case should be considered on merit and I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that there are 37 people serving life sentences who fall in this category. Some of them have been in gaol for almost 20 years. I think even the most hardened person in this Committee, even the hon. member for Mossel Bay, might consider that 20 years is a long time to be locked up, to be deprived of freedom. In practically every Western country that I know, life sentence never exeeds 20 years. As I said, unless the man is dangerous and violent, he should be considered for remission of sentence. Therefore, I hope the hon. the Minister …

Why did he get such a long sentence, if he is not dangerous?

It was a serious crime. However, 20 years is a very serious sentence. Sir, I cannot tell you what goodwill South Africa would earn among Western countries if she gave remission of sentence to some of these prisoners.

No.

I knew the hon. member for Mossel Bay would say no. He sits there shaking his head. However, I am glad to say that other members are looking a little more objective about this, even the hon. members of the Conservative Party.

I now want to say a few words about the report in the time left to me. It is an interesting report and it gives us a lot of very interesting information. It is much better than the Law and Order Departmental report which I saw the other day. I hope the Department is going to continue to give us these useful statistics, because they are very useful indeed. February 1981 showed the highest ever daily average number of prisoners, namely 104 622. In May, prior to amnesty, the figure had dropped to under 100 000 and by 30 June, when the amnesty was granted, it went down to 82 706. The hon. Minister was a bit jumpy the other day when I mentioned the high percentage of short-term prisoners cluttering up and overcrowding our gaols. I can assure members that Robben Island is not typical. One should go to Groenpunt, Brandvlei and gaols like that. Then, one will get a much more typical picture of the accommodation problems at the gaols. Those are the gaols that we ought to visit. I should like to go in the recess. I do not want to go with a whole mob of other MP’s; I should like to go on my own. [Interjections.] It is not that I do not love the company of my colleagues, not at all. I had some very interesting conversations on the boat to Robben Island. One hon. member wanted to throw me overboard to feed me to the sharks. Never mind about that. However, the point is that if one goes as an individual, one can stop and talk; not that we were denied the opportunity. However, one feels that one cannot hold up the whole party by standing and talking to people one wants to talk to. Therefore, I should like to go on my own.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Oh, what a shame! [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think I shall deal with the points which the hon. member for Houghton raised a little later. At the moment my time has been limited by the Whips. I should like to deal with a few matters, and it may perhaps partly deal with one of the matters raised by the hon. member.

*Mr. Chairman, every organization, including the Prison Service, must from time to time, in the interests of efficiency, measure its conduct and actions against its objectives and the task entrusted to it. The task of the Prison Service is laid down in section 2 of the Prisons Act. In the first place it is to carry out its duty of safe custody efficiently. The Prison Service has received exceptional appreciation for this. The number of escapes has indeed decreased. I can tell the hon. member for Brakpan right now that escapes in this connection occur from the outside workteams and not from the outposts or the farm prisons. However, we have in fact given publicity to this aspect, more than in the past, when our view of the matter was that a prisoner constituted a great potential threat to the public. Consequently this approach has perhaps created the impression that there were more escapes. In fact, the numbers has decreased. It is the lowest in 12 years. I also want to give credit to Gen. Otto and his officers, non-commissioned officers and warders in this connection. They have performed this task very efficiently.

The second task, according to the legislation, is that the Prison Service shall, as far as practicable, apply such treatment to convicted prisoners as may lead to their reformation and rehabilitation and to train them in habits of industry and labour. This is the letter of the law. Combined with that, of course, there is the task of effective administration. The fact of the matter is that the means for carrying out this task include manpower, professional knowledge and facilities. All of these factors are limited in these times, and must consequently be employed sparingly and with forethought. Consequently administration must be geared to utilizing these factors effectively. The creation and maintenance of a favourable climate within which these auxiliary measures may best be employed requires that from time to time critical consideration should be given to administration and to its reorganization. I hope to say more about this in a moment. We have a dynamic team, a dynamic style of administration which is receptive to modern needs and adjustments. Of course attention must also be given to the structure of the organization and the rationalization of its activities. In this connection attention must also be given to the services’ policy in regard to the handling of prisoners, in which is included the release policy.

Apart from the individual differences in personality, a prison population has only one feature in common. This afternoon the hon. member for Houghton did us a tremendous favour by moving into the future with us with one gigantic leap, like the first men to walk on the moon, by accepting that all our prisoners are criminals, whether they be first offenders, minor offenders, statutory offenders or habitual criminals. It does not matter which statutory provisions have been contravened. This gives us the opportunity to ensure that everyone receives uniform treatment, and the hon. member for Houghton advocated this. This uniformity makes everyone equal, and the common denominator, crime, does not elevate the one above the other. The Prison Service involves itself with this criminal who did not want to conform with the norms of society by treating him, by keeping him in custody, and so on. We are trying to give a better product back to society. The hon. member for Bloemfontein East made a meritorious contribution in this regard and referred to our contribution to the after-care service, although that is not our task. Reference was made to the rehabilitation in prison. The hon. member for Pretoria West made a valuable contribution and pointed out that the number of long-term prisoners who return to prison is extremely small. Consequently this is a very great contribution.

We must also see whether the prisoners will make a contribution in a free community, for good or for ill, and we have to gear ourselves accordingly. We must also ascertain whether the prisoner will exert a good or a bad influence in a free community and we must gear ourselves accordingly. We must also weigh up whether the prisoner is exerting a good or bad influence in the prison. In this connection can we allow the habitual criminal to have a detrimental influence on the first and minor offender? Hon. members addressed inquiries in this connection. There were arguments in the newspapers about juvenile criminals who end up in a prison and the question was whether they are then allowed to come into contact with hardened criminals. We say as far as possible “no”. Given the accommodation, our standpoint is “no”. We say this because today’s shoplifter can become tomorrow’s armed robber if he finds himself in that company. That is why classification takes place.

However, if we accept this fundamental argument, we ask ourselves whether we can allow the stone-thrower of today to become the saboteur or bomb-planter of tomorrow. Our reply to that is also “no”. How can the contamination of those susceptible to rehabilitation, be prevented? The reply to this is the following: The remedy is to be found in the rationalization of the approach in respect of all prisoners. How do we propose to prevent the process of contamination? In the first place, by the decentralization of points of detention in respect of prisoners who can exert or perpetuate a bad influence. The hardended saboteur and underminer cannot contaminate his fellow hardened criminal any further. The rehabilitatable prisoner influences his fellow rehabilitatable criminal into positive thinking and a better future. So why not group them together? Logically it is fit and proper that we should rationalize privileges. This has been dealt with. Nothing is being taken away. Something is being added, but it has to be earned. Hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Pretoria West, argued this point very well. It has to be earned. The privileges will serve as an incentive bonus to self-rehabilitation in order to strive for and achieve a crime-free life as a useful, law-abiding citizen.

The prison lends itself to uniform discipline and control, where everyone is measured with one yardstick, the common denominator. Rights, privileges, concessions, yes, and also, alas, the stigma and misery of imprisonment is imposed on everyone. This is the price for all crime for which a sentence is imposed.

This brings me to security prisoners, those who are sent to prison in terms of security legislation. These people, as others have done, have also broken the laws of this country. They enjoy no status above that of other criminals and deserve no different approach or treatment. They, too, must earn their privileges as others do, and are subject to the same discipline. The same responsibility and co-operation to ensure an orderly prison community is expected of them. This is not a liberal approach, but a very strict scientific approach. What I wish to emphasize is that they, just like other criminals, will in future be treated in a way which takes factors such as security and treatment into consideration. Consequently it has now been decided that prisoners sentenced for offences which are directed against the security or authority of the State and who are known as security prisoners can in future also earn mitigation of punishment on an individual basis. In the nature of things it will only be those with a good prognosis who will come into consideration for this, in other words, those who offer their co-operation and who have proved that they have indeed turned their backs on crime. This is important.

Does this include new prisoners or is it only applicable to those who are at present being detained?

It is applicable to the prison population as it exists at present. They must prove that they abandoned their old ways. I want to emphasize that strict selection will be applied and according to our experience up to now it will only be a small percentage of the total who will really deserve and receive mitigation of punishment. If I could give the hon. member for Houghton a piece of good advice, she should now treat this matter with the greatest circumspection and not wish to play the role of the institutional committees which assess individuals scientifically.

I am the soul of discretion.

Do not try to be a fairy godmother.

Do you now agree with this policy? You disagreed then minutes ago.

No.

He sat there shaking his head.

I want to give the hon. member for Groote Schuur the assurance that these hon. members were consulted in this matter. The hon. member for Pretoria West argued along these lines.

Why did he then shake his head when the hon. member for Houghton was speaking?

Perhaps he just does not like what I look like.

The first screened cases are at present under consideration. In a more humorous vein, I just wish to tell the hon. member for Houghton that I can read her thoughts. Those cases which are receiving attention are not in her thoughts. I want to make an appeal to every responsible person to stop speculating about this matter, to stop addressing unnecessary representations and particularly to stop coming to the State and to the prison authorities with irresponsible arguments. We have reached a milestone today and from that side of the House we have received irrefutable confirmation, including the words used by the hon. members, that all prisoners are equal, that everyone is in prison on account of a crime and is serving a sentence in terms of the laws of this country. This is an important milestone that we have reached. In any event, this appeal will probably fall on deaf ears as far as Amnesty International is concerned, from whom we receive hundreds of letters every day. These are organized campaigns which are not of great significance. Sometimes representations are addressed in respect of people whom we know absolutely nothing about or in respect of people who were released long ago.

This brings me then to mitigation of punishment as opposed to conditional release. In future security prisoners with a good prognosis will also be taken into consideration on an individual basis for provisional release. To this statement I wish to add immediately that all other external factors as apply at present in the case of the granting of parole to other prisoners will be taken into consideration. I do not wish to hazard a guess in advance now as to what these factors could be, because such factors could become less important or more important and they could change as to content and circumstances. This implies further that specific conditions are associated with the release as in the case of ordinary parole. The same qualifying requirements as have already been referred to will also apply in these cases. This form of release has the advantage that control over a released prisoner is retained for the period during which he is released on parole or on probation and any false step could mean that the unexpired portion of his sentence may come into effect again. The conditions can consequently be adapted according to the needs in each individual case to comply with the security requirements of the State as well.

In pursuance of what I envisaged as far as the points of detention are concerned, I want to say that it has also been decided to continue with the programme of decentralized detention of security prisoners. I want to emphasize this. At present these prisoners are from time to time detained in prisons throughout the entire country. They are not only confined to Robben Island. The security prisoners have already been classified into various categories on the basis of their background, degrees of offence, disposition, prognosis, etc. into various categories. A start has already been made with transferring them to various prisons and further transfers will now take place from time to time. In the first place the decentralization will greatly facilitate the handling of prisoners, but the greatest advantage is that those who are prepared to co-operate and react positively will be able to do so more easily without the negative influence and intimidation of others who are not prepared to do so. This ought to serve as a strong motivation for many of them to abandon their old ways and turn over a new leaf, which was also the argument put forward by the hon. member for Houghton, namely that the privileges could be earned if a criminal turned his back on crime. This is an incentive. It therefore means that every prison in the Republic may serve as a potential detention centre for security prisoners, as is in fact at present the practice. I want to emphasize once again that this is not an ameliorative policy. On the contrary, we are succeeding in drawing the line separating the rehabilitable and the rehabilitated from one another far more sharply and far more severally. Consequently this should not be seen as the thin end of a wedge or as a first step, but is the logical extension of the principles we should like to see prevailing.

The hon. member for Houghton also asked me about the Release Advisory Board and the office-bearers of that board. We have already constituted the board and the following persons were appointed as members and alternates for members of the board: the judge of the Supreme Court and chairman: The hon. Judge of Appeal Gerrit Viljoen; the judge of the Supreme Court as alternate: the hon. Mr. Justice E. Kumleben; the magistrate of a regional division: Chief Magistrate W. F. Krügel of the Pretoria regional division; the magistrate of a regional division as alternate: Magistrate C. P. J. Steytler; the Attorney-General or a Deputy Attorney-General: Advocate D. J. Rossouw, Attorney-General of the Cape; the Attorney-General or a Deputy Attorney General as alternate: Dr. J. A. S. D’Oliveira, Deputy Attorney-General of the Transvaal; the brigadier in the S.A. Police: Brig. S. H. Schutte; the brigadier in the S.A. Police as alternate: Brig. I. van der Vyver; the brigadier in the Prison Service: Brig. C. C. Faber, who has a great deal of experience in this connection; the brigadier in the Prison Service as alternate: Brig. J. D. Griesel; the member of the Release Board: Brig. M. B. Bosman; the member of the Release Board as substitute: Lt.-Col. R. A. H. Swemmer; two persons who are not in the full-time employ of the State and who in the opinion of the State President have special knowledge of or experience of matters pertaining to the activities and duties of the Release Advisory Board: Prof. P. J. van der Walt of Unisa and Prof. H. L. Crause of the University of Port Elizabeth.

I have not yet disposed of the delineation of their task and the scope of their terms of reference. This has already been laid down by statute. I have already told hon. members that I wish to give this Release Advisory Board a great deal of scope to develop its own style and its own procedure. In fact, we have not yet finalized the categories which we shall refer to this board either. I can assure the hon. member for Houghton and the other hon. members who are interested in this matter that it will now begin to gain momentum. From time to time we shall consider the composition of this Release Advisory Board, for we should also like to give effect to the population situation, the multinationalism in South Africa, the various population groups which are relevant here. On the basis of this we shall probably reconsider the composition of this board from time to time. I think the time granted to me by the Whips has now expired. I think I should now stop pleasing the hon. member for Houghton. Perhaps she should examine carefully what I have said and she may not be so pleased after all. Consequently I shall allow an opportunity for further debate.

Mr. Chairman, the community often sees the maintenance of law and order as being the sole responsibility of the police and the judiciary but in this regard the Prison Service also has a major role to play, not only in the isolation and safe custody of the prisoner, but also—and this is even more important—in the long-term endeavour to return a better product to the community. In this way the community is not only improved but also protected against crime. Since everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, the position is that a perfectly objective test is applied in deciding whether or not a person is to be convicted. However, in meeting out punishment a subjective test is applied which has regard to the specific circumstances of the person and the treatment he is to receive. Since the case of each individual prisoner is different, it is necessary to take into account individual characteristics and needs and to prescribe individual treatment. I want to deal with the work of the observation centre and the institution committee.

Every prisoner serving a sentence for one crime or a concurrent sentence for more than one crime for a period of two years or more, is transferred to an observation centre as soon as possible after admission. Here an investigation is conducted into his background, social and psychological functioning and personality structure by a team of professional people consisting of social workers, psychologists, educationists and spiritual workers. A prisoner is separated to the largest possible extent from other prisoners during his period of observation, because an individual analysis is possible only when there are no other factors exerting an influence on the prisoner’s case study. The gathering of data during the observation period is essential for the recommendation to be made as to the prisoner’s full programme of treatment. This is the first step in preparing a cumulative case study and the data relate to the following aspects: his background, his criminal career, educational qualifications, religious life, age, profession, marital status and everything applying to him personally, the nature and circumstances of his crime and any previous crimes, the duration of the sentences, the remarks made by the judicial officer meting out punishment, his own attitude towards his conviction and sentence as well as his physical and mental condition. At the end of this period of observation all the inputs are correlated and the institution committee is advised as to the programme of treatment, the type of training, what occupational field he ought to enter, the prescribed institution in which he should preferably be detained as well as the group into which he should be classified.

There are two forms of classification. Firstly, there is the horizontal system of classification which is based on the prisoner’s criminal record, tendencies and behaviour. This system is linked to the prisoner’s privileges with maximum privileges in group A and minimum privileges in group B. It is possible to be promoted from one group to the other group, and such promotion is dependent on the aforementioned factors. Secondly, there is the in-depth system of classification which is based on factors such as his intelligence, personality functioning and rehabilitation possibilities. Prisoners are also divided into five categories on the basis of these factors.

Next I come to the work of the institution committee. The institution committee consists of representatives of the specialized treatment groups, i.e. social workers, psychologists, educationists and religious workers and such other persons as may be necessary. The head of the prison is the chairman. This committee must consider all aspects of each individual prisoner and work out a programme of treatment and training for the prisoner. An important aspect of the functions of the institution committee is the fact that the prisoner is afforded the opportunity to make known his wishes and needs so that the proposed programme may be adjusted where possible. The institution committee must decide on the following aspects of the programme of treatment: The institution to which the prisoner is to be sent, the nature of the security which is required and which varies from maximum security to minimum security, the work the prisoner is to do and for which he is to be trained, in respect of which regard is had, of course, to his earlier history and a few other general aspects, for example, what education the prisoner ought to be given, what psychological or social treatment or religious ministration is required and the horizontal as well as the in-depth classification of the prisoner. Under the guidance of the institution committee the programme of treatment is implemented in practice and adjusted where necessary. This means that the prisoner is continuously under the control of the institution committee from the time of his admission to the prison to the time of his release. Attention is also given to preparation for release. Consequently the institution committee is responsible for the submission of profile reports on the prisoner to the release board with regard to the prisoner’s release. This is very important.

Two surveys were conducted for evaluating the success of this programme. These were conducted over different periods. The results showed that 73% of the cases were successfully assimilated in the community. Perhaps this figure does not sound too good, but one should have regard to the fact that here we are concerned with persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment for periods of two years and more and that such persons will receive a very heavy sentence for the slightest crime after his release. However, this figure compares very well with results in other parts of the world.

The hon. member for Brakpan dealt with crimes of violence. It may be accepted that these crimes are increasing in intensity. For this reason it is laudable that the Prison Service, and specifically the Commissioner, has taken the initiatve with research in this regard and formally requested the HSRC, during January 1982, to undertake research on behalf of the Prison Service into all possible aspects of the perpetrator of crimes of violence. Various persons from universities, the Prison Service and other bodies have been co-opted to serve in this research committee. This committee has worked out various strategies for research projects. Factors which will be investigated, include the socio-cultural factors which are involved in causing crimes of violence, the rehabilitation of specifically the perpetrator of crimes of violence and the release of potentially dangerous offenders. The input of the Prison Service itself in the case of the two last-mentioned factors can be a major one. As I have said, the request for this research project was made at the beginning of 1982 and the project has already commenced. I think one should allow this committee a reasonable time to investigate and to thrash out this important subject scientifically and in depth. It is of particular importance to the community that offenders perpetrating crimes of violence be dealt with in a scientific way. If we achieve success in this regard, we shall render an enormous service to the community. I want to repeat that it is laudable that the Prison Service and specifically the Commissioner have concerned themselves with this matter and have taken the initiative in this regard.

There may be, as I have said at the outset, an inadequate realization of the extent to which our Prison Service is responsible for the protection of the community and the maintenance of law and order.

Mr. Chairman, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to react briefly to the announcement made by the hon. the Minister in connection with the position of prisoners convicted of security crimes. Because of the reaction from Opposition side the hon. the Minister proceeded cautiously so as to ensure that he would not be misunderstood. As I understood him, a decision had merely been taken in principle that these prisoners would now be placed in the same category as other prisoners as far as consideration for purposes of parole was concerned. If I understood him correctly in this regard, it was definitely a good decision. This is how we view the matter and we compliment him on that decision. It is a correct decision for in our opinion there has never been any sound reason for these prisoners to be treated differently to prisoners convicted of ordinary crimes. There has never been a sound reason for these people to be totally excluded from consideration for parole, etc., because of the fact that a crime has a political flavour. Also in other instances where similar arrangements applied, for example in the instance of people convicted of the contravention of foreign exchange control measures, I think it was an unhealthy state of affairs to practice discrimination amongst the various groups. After all, there are textbooks on the law of evidence in which political motives are mentioned as possible extenuating circumstances in cases of murder convictions. Instead of regarding them as aggravating circumstances one should, in my opinion, give a person the benefit of the doubt and regard them as possible extenuating circumstances. We are asking for nothing more, however, than that they should be treated on merit which is in fact the decision which has now been taken, as we understand it.

During our recent visit to Robben Island we talked to some of these prisoners. I personally was impressed with the way in which that particular prison is being run. I think there is much to be said for this prison. It is neat, it is well-organized, etc., and conditions are quite satisfactory. After that visit, however, one could not help but feel extremely depressed specially because of the fact that one is so aware of a tremendous wealth of talent among the prisoners incarcerated in that particular prison, talent which cannot be used to benefit some community. I have no doubt that there are people on that island as well as in other prisons who are guilty of political crimes … [Interjections.] The hon. members must not start a semantic argument with me now.

Don’t talk nonsense.

Mention one political crime to me.

The hon. members have suddenly become tremendously sensitive about this.

But you must not talk nonsense.

I do not want to argue with them. What I have said I meant in all good sense. If I had to describe it in a different way, I would have to use two sentences. The hon. members must not waste my time. The fact of the matter is that I talked to a man there who has for example, been incarcerated for 19 years. He was 19 years old when he arrived there. The simple point is that there is every possible chance now of that person having lost his political enthusiasm or political fervour or of having changed his political views in the course of those 19 years and that there is every possibility of that person now being susceptible to being used in some positive capacity in a community if he were to be granted the opportunity of being returned to that community. The hon. member for Mossel Bay is shaking his head. It seems to me he is very dissatisfied with the hon. the Minister’s decision, but we can discuss that later.

No, I am not dissatisfied with it, I am dissatisfied with the nonsense you are talking.

I do not want to have any further arguments about that now.

†Mr. Chairman, I just have to come back to a question pertaining to the administration of justice that has been discussed earlier on and to which hon. members on the other side have reacted fairly strongly. If one had to define the term “jungle justice”, if one had to give some substance to that description by finding some underlying principle which finds application in all instances of what one could describe as jungle justice or primitive justice, one can do no better than to refer to a situation where one party who feels himself aggrieved has the right to take revenge on his adversary instead of pleading his case before an independent authority or an independent court. In other words, I would say that jungle justice, if one could use that term, takes place when a person is given the right to decide on the guilt of his adversary and punish that adversary to his own liking. For instance, we all know of the cases where the family of a murdered person had the right in primitive societies to hunt down and to kill the person whom they believed to have been the murderer of their father, their brother or whichever member of their family. This system has the obvious shortcoming that there is no safeguard to ensure that the guilt of the person is properly established, that that guilt is properly connected to the correct person and that an objectively suitable sentence is imposed. For these very obvious considerations during the course of history civilized societies have forbidden this system of revenge which paraded as justice and have developed the system of independent courts, of well-trained judges, magistrates and legal practitioners and of very strict rules and guidelines to ensure fairness and justice in the true sense of the word. Unfortunately, the underlying principle of jungle justice which I have just enunciated is the same underlying principle of the system of banning without trial because who decides on the guilt and the punishment of the person who is to be banned or detained without trial? Who decides that such a person is a danger to the State? Is that decision taken by an independent system, by an independent person? No, it is not. It is taken by a politician—in some cases it may be a police officer—who is certainly not independent but in fact is the political adversary of the person who is to be banned. That politician, who in this particular instance may be the hon. the Minister of Justice or in some cases the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, is not bound by the strict rules or procedures that apply to our system of justice which apply in the courts. He has in fact unfettered power and can take a decision based on untested evidence and he can decide on the guilt of his political adversary and how he is to be punished. The Rabie Commission investigated this question and reported on it. As already pointed out, we on this side of the House certainly do not find that report satisfactory. To me, personally, one of the most objectionable aspects of the report is the statement made in justification of transferring the function of banning without trial from the Department of Justice to the Department of Law and Order because, it is said, it affects the image and status of the Department of Justice. In my opinion this is a supremely cynical statement and deserving of the strongest criticism. In the main people who are involved in the administration of justice, are eager that justice is done and justice is seen to be done, but this statement suggests that it is adequate when justice is thought to be done.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry but I do not have the time. If the hon. member did not shout so much and asked his question earlier, I would have answered him. If this sort of attitude is taken to its logical and ultimate conclusion it will mean, and hon. members can think about how far one can push that kind of attitude or that kind of principle, that our judiciary will become a mere front and that our system of independent courts could become no more than elaborate window-dressing while the main area of conflict in our country, which is the political area, is completely subjected to jungle justice. This is the kind of justice which already applies to many political areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. members for Houghton and Green Point that they are far better on Prisons than on Justice. I want to say to them that this side of the House—and the department, too, I am sure—do not want hon. members opposite to be uncritical. It is their task to be critical, but then that criticism must be responsible and I fear that when they discuss Justice they are irresponsible. I shall prove that to them here and now. This side of the House is not satisfied with the security legislation as it stands at present and that is why we appointed the Rabie Commission and why a different Bill is at present before Parliament. We are not satisfied with it. Why are they making such a fuss at this stage? This proves to me one thing and one thing only, namely that they are playing to an audience outside Parliament. It is an audience which is quite probably in a different country. If they want to put forward constructive criticism they must begin by recognizing that there is a place for security legislation.

Not this class of legislation.

In the second instance they must say how this legislation can be improved and what form it should take. However, they are not prepared to do so.

This constitutes undermining of the court and there is no place for that.

I want to come back to Prisons and say that over the past number of months it has been my privilege to take part in visits to prisons. I visited the Pietermaritzburg prison in December 1981, Pollsmoor prison in March 1982 and Robben Island in April 1982. On all these occasions Brigadier Botha, who was in charge of and arranged these visits, made it very clear to the visitors that the visiting MP’s were free to enter any part of the prison and to visit and speak to any person, and that we had absolute freedom during the visits. Moreover, we made use of this opportunity, and there were discussions with prisoners in all categories, as well as consideration of their circumstances. We saw how they indulged in recreation, how their food is prepared, how their clothes are washed, what their sick bay looks like, how the institution committees function, where the prisoners work. Comprehensive information was provided on all aspects of prisons and all our questions were answered in detail. I want to state here very categorically that I cannot imagine how members of Parliament could be more comprehensively informed than they were during these visits.

When I refer to impressions I must say in the first instance that as far as I am concerned the accommodation is of the highest standard. There are exceptions, too, such as the old prison at Pietermaritzburg. That clearly does not meet high standards, but it will be replaced shortly by an extremely modern prison. As regards the living conditions such as food, clothes, hygiene and recreation, I want to say that these are as good as possible in the circumstances. There will always be complaints. There are complaints in a hostel and even in Parliament, and the complainants will always be with us, just as the dissatisfied will always be with us.

I think it is really amazing that there are so few complaints during these visits. What I regard as far more important than the accommodation and living conditions are the people attached to the Prison Service. As far as I am concerned I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that I was extremely impressed by the quality and motivation of the members of the Prison Service. They do this work in difficult circumstances and often in unpleasant circumstances, but are nevertheless motivated and conscious of their calling. They perform a tremendous service for the community. I do not make these remarks purely on the basis of these visits that have been specially arranged for members of Parliament. I do so on the basis of years of experience and many visits to many prisons due to my profession. I am profoundly grateful to Brigadier Botha, who is responsible for the Department’s public liaison, for his initiative and handling of the visits to prisons. I also wish to assure General Otto that we on this side of the House have only the highest appreciation for what he and his department are doing.

I have a few remarks to make with reference to the relationship between the Prison Service, or the prisons as such, and the community. It is often contended that the activities of the Prison Service take place behind closed doors and in secrecy. In the eyes of a public a prison is often regarded as something strange, mysterious, alien—almost forbidding. Many people feel antagonism towards prisons. This image must not be broken down entirely, and the prison must continue to be a deterrent. If is is not, then it does not do what it is meant to. It is there primarily for the purposes of punishment. Unfortunately the criminal is a reality of the community and he is here to stay. Equally, the prison is a reality of the community and a permanent part of the community. In addition, the prison is pre-eminently an organization which is concerned about the prisoner and wishes to return him to the community a better person than he was when he entered the prison. Because the prison is such an important and permanent part of the community and is such an important instrument for the improvement of the community it is important that there should be a close link between the community and the prison. There ought to be greater involvement in the prison on the part of the community and there ought to be a greater awareness on the part of the community in regard to what is done in prisons. I believe, too, that the community ought to have some say with regard to the prison. In this regard I see the introduction of the Release Advisory Board on which prominent persons and community leaders have representation, as a precursor to what may possibly be greater community involvement in prisons. I look forward with great expectations and confidence to the activities of this board because I believe that if successful, it could be extended to the local level. Boards for prisons could perhaps be established operating on the same principle as boards of mental institutions. As a result there will be maximum involvement of the community in regard to the activities of prisons at the local level as well.

Whereas the public has a strong need and also an inalienable right to know about the conditions in prisons, the Prison Service also has a duty to protect the prisoner from public curiosity, insults and publicity. The standard minimum rules established for the treatment of offenders by the UN, which have also been accepted in South Africa, also endorse this principle. Accordingly the public and Press cannot simply be permitted to have free access to prisons. Persons who are admitted to prisons on an ongoing basis are those persons who are needed there, such as inspectors of prisons, judges, magistrates, social workers, doctors, legal practitioners and individuals or groups that are concerned with the administration of justice, or who are able to make a positive contribution to the rehabilitation programme. Accordingly I see the recent invitation extended to members of Parliament as evidence of the fact that the Prison Service has nothing to hide and that they are in fact proud of what they have achieved and are willing to listen to criticism. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, towards the end of a day which has produced sound debate, the hon. member for Green Point spoilt the whole atmosphere by saying certain irresponsible things here. These allegations, to put it mildly, contained malicious insinuations. What did the hon. member say this afternoon? He referred to “jungle justice” and said that it was “to punish a person to his own liking” and referred to “a system of revenge that parades as justice”. He went on to say that restrictions form part of this. Surely this means that a whole group of senior officials in the service of the State, police officers and staff of the Department of Justice who collect and consider information and then advise the hon. the Minister to restrict a person, are engaged in this kind of thing. That is the allegation he makes when he says that these people “punish a person to their own liking”. What a scandalous thing to say. They are also, according to him, engaged in “revenge for their own personal use”. What have we come to if an hon. member can stand up in this House and abuse his position here to accuse senior officials in the service of the State or even an hon. Minister …

They act on behalf of the State.

… of sitting in their offices and suddenly deciding that they do not like some politician and that that person should then be restricted. [Interjections.] What have we come to if an hon. member of this House does this kind of thing and if he can abuse his position to attack people in this way.

That is not what I said.

But surely that is what the hon. member said and tried to intimate here. We take it amiss of him. Hon. members asked me this afternoon to mention one other country in the world where restriction orders exist. I now wish to quote from the Israel Yearbook of Human Rights—

What year is that?

It is the 1978 edition. It is certainly not all that old.

Everything changed in 1978. A new law was passed in 1978.

I quote further from this—

The law was changed in 1978.

The yearbook goes on to say—

It has all changed.

It may be that it has changed; as far as I was able to ascertain it has not changed, but why do the hon. members say that “restriction orders” only exist in South Africa? Let us be fair. That is not fair to South Africa.

We are talking about today. Israel is still being attacked by terrorists.

Surely South Africa is also being attacked by terrorists. What is going on in the hearts of the official Opposition that they should attack their country in this way? What is going on in their hearts if that is how they feel about South Africa? We do not wish to argue with Israel in regard to this matter. They found it necessary that there should be such measures and we respect that. However, what must also be recognized is the right of this Government to take steps in our country at this stage to preserve the values that are important to us. They, too, want that. [Interjections.] Why does the hon. member come along with this kind of statement which only destroys our image abroad? Therefore the hon. member Mr. Schutte is right when he says that the hon. member for Green Point is playing to an audience abroad. He is not furthering South Africa’s image abroad but he is attacking and blackening it and we hold it very much against him that this is the way in which he abuses his position in this House.

I wish to say a few words about a far more pleasant matter and this is something which is of great importance to members of the public. I refer to the question of the escape and rearrest of escaped prisoners. This is in the public interest because the aim of the Prison Service is to keep every prisoner who is in prison for penal purposes in safe custody and, while he is there, to attempt to rehabilitate him. For a different reason, it is also important for us to know what is going on with regard to escapes and the re-arrest of these persons. This is a matter of the safety of the public. Prisoners who escape are often desperate people who pose a danger to members of the public. It will therefore be as well if we know what the position is in this regard. The hon. the Minister has said that the impression may be created that the number of escapes have increased recently, but if one looks at the true facts one sees that in fact the number has dropped dramatically. In 1969-70 the number that escaped was 1 701. This dropped to 1 371 in 1980-’81. Percentagewise the figure of 1,88% in 1969-70 dropped to 1,36% in 1980-’81. In contrast to this drop in the number of escapes, the daily prison population during the same period increased from 90 500 in 1969-70 to 100 533 in 1980-’81. Percentagewise, this represents an increase of 10,3% as against the indicated drop in the number of escapes. This is a fine achievement and gives us an indication of the constant endeavour on the part of the Prison Service to achieve greater efficiency in carrying out the task that has been entrusted to them.

I could speak at length about the rationalization of the service in this regard. The service now comprises three branches, namely safe custody, treatment services and staff services. This is something that one could wax enthusiastic about, but time does not allow me to elaborate on this any further. Suffice it to say that the introduction of a positive system of management is being envisaged which will amount to decentralized management and the creation of a climate in which greater responsibility, initiative and decision-making will become a reality at all levels of management.

In the final minute at my disposal I want to come back to the question of escapes. Because the public is so closely concerned with this the hon. the Minister and the Department follow the policy of bringing all available information to the attention of the public by way of press and radio. The reaction of the public to this has been exceptionally favourable and positive. Several escapees have been identified and rearrested due to outstanding and wide-awake action on the part of the public. I think it would be fitting to convey a word of thanks to the public in this regard. Moreover, due to the circumstances that often prevail it is not very difficult to escape. For example, the greater percentage of prisoners work outside the institutions of the Prison Service. Some of them are in positions of confidence in which they are not supervised. Therefore in their case it is not really a matter of escape so much as absconding. Apart from that, many of the older prisons where we have to keep people no longer comply with the modern standards of security. Nevertheless it is interesting to note that of the 1 371 prisoners who escaped during 1980-’81, only 131 escaped from prisons. Ongoing efforts are made by the prison authorities to overhaul the standards of security, to secure prisons and to take preventive measured by, inter alia, identifying potential escapees at an early stage and taking the necessary precautions. When an escape takes place, immediate, purposeful and effective action is taken to ensure that the escapee will be behind bars again as soon as possible. If possible, the prison authorities themselves try to arrest these persons. However, if the person has already left the area the matter is handed over to the South African Police, who act speedily and effectively and immediately cast their net countrywide in order to have the criminals in custody again as soon as possible. The Police and the Prison Service have a very good record in this regard and I think that we can reassure the public, in the sense that the Police and the Prison Service are really doing their best at all times to protect the interests of the public by getting these people behind bars again as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I shall return shortly to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, but I first wish to reply to the speakers in the sequence in which they spoke. The hon. member for Durban Central raised another subject, and at the end of my speech I hope to return to his contribution as well as to the contribution of the hon. member for Green Point, which I do think deserve replies, although they have already been given practically and appropriately.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay said some fine things about the Department, which were based on the good and reliable statistics to date, which he had examined. The hon. member also referred to the officials and I want to say at once that perhaps we do not make sufficient mention of the public servants who do not come into prominence in the front line in the Press. These are the people who assist us in carrying out our duties and who have to take important decisions and adopt responsible standpoints on an executive level. I think it is appropriate for me to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my appreciation to Gen. Otto and the general staff, the corps of officers and non-commissioned officers and warders for the service they have rendered. In respect of parliamentary proceedings, and my task in particular, I should like to thank Gen. Otto and the staff who assist him. I do not want to mention any specific names, for then one could run into difficulties. The fact of the matter is, however, that those gentlemen are known to you and I have great appreciation for them, as well as for the Directorate of Justice. Without their contribution quite a good deal of this information would not reach hon. members in time and it is not always possible for the Minister to have answers ready.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay said that I should avail myself of this opportunity to take his reaction to the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members further, for they argued that the release policy would make a great impression on the outside world. The hon. member pointed out that in this connection the outside world made no impression on him. I also referred to Amnesty International and to their campaigns, and I made it clear that this policy is now being applied on the basis of logic and the needs and not because of any impression we wanted to make on the outside world or because of any external pressure which was being exerted on to us. I wish to state this categorically, and that was also the basis of the reaction of the hon. member for Mossel Bay.

The hon. member for Kroonstad made his customary contribution on the prisons, which was based on facts, and he also raised an important point. He referred to the considerable saving which was being effected through the operation of prison farms. Without going into too much detail, I can say that these farms saved the State more than R6 million in rations alone every year. As far as the feeding of our prison population is concerned, they enable us to maintain a high level, and the mere fact that we heard nothing negative if anything at all in this connection today says a great deal for the fact that we are able to produce food of a high quality instead of purchasing it. We are able to keep it on a relatively low price level. In comparison with the outside world, our cost per prison unit is relatively low. In the outside world it is astromically high. After all, our units are in accordance with international standards, and studies are constantly being made of international situations and there is a constant observation of norms. Without turning prisons into five star hotels, the Prison Service is intent on at least maintaining the minimum standards.

The hon. member for Brakpan put a number of questions to me, and I appreciate the support that I received from him. He referred to the Krügel Committee and asked me to say a few words about the activities of this committee. Mr. Krügel is at present chief magistrate of Pretoria and is chairman of this committee and is supported by Gen. May and Adv. D’Oliveira. This is a departmental working group, rather than a committee. Up to now they have done good work. In addition to visits which they have paid to specific centres in the country and discussions which they have had with judges-president, attorneys-general, magistrates, public prosecutors and members of the Prison Service, they have, in a scientific way, sent out questionnaires which are directed at bottlenecks to enable us to deal with the overpopulation problem more satisfactorily. They made motivated proposals to other departments. It is not the appropriate time to discuss them now, since they are still in an embryonic stage. The most important single outcome of the activities of the Krügel Committee, in view of the overpopulation problem, is undoubtedly the intensified interests which has been aroused among, and the appropriate reaction which has been elicited from, sentencing officers, public prosecutors and members of the Prison Service. It has also been demonstrated that many problems could be resolved with more regular liaison among all the persons involved on a local level. It is very significant that the latest statistics indicate that the granting of amnesty has had a beneficial effect. The prison population is at this stage far smaller than in any comparable situation in earlier years or on the previous occasion when amnesty was granted.

What I am therefore telling you is that it is not unlikely that these activities of the committee, which are directed at the overpopulation of the prisons, and so on, are already beginning to have results. At present our prisons are only 19% overpopulated. This is according to maximum standards. I wish to state that this may be regarded as a moderate over-population. Recently, too, we have expanded our prison accommodation considerably. Diepkloof, the Johannesburg prison, was recently shown to the Press. Hon. members will probably read about it in the newspapers today. Together with the new Krugersdorp prison this is an accommodation expansion for 4 000 people. That is all I want to say about the Krügel Committee.

As regards the study in connection with crimes of violence, I think the hon. member for Nelspruit reacted appropriately to this by referring to the inquiry carried out by the HSRC. Their findings will provide valuable material which we will be able to use in determining which categories of individual criminals deserve special attention or qualify for release, and so on, because we must always bear in mind the interests of the community in this regard. It could also lead to the application of special programmes of treatment.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East referred to after-care. I just wish to make the point that there are 17 organizations which are at present involved in after-care. Although we do not have a task in this connection, Gen. Otto adopted the standpoint that he should encourage his functionaries involved in this matter to liaise with these organizations. They are in the process of working out a special model with a view to liaison with these organizations which undertake after-care so that when a prisoner returns to the community these organizations will know about such a person and will also have his profile reading and his personality composite, and so on. This is a matter which is in the embryonic stage. I also think it is a matter which ought to be elevated beyond politics entirely. I think that these 16 or 17 organizations got the message long ago that we are absolutely receptive for co-operation. However, I think it is also appropriate for one to make an appeal so that when it comes to funding and financing the community should bear a proportionately greater responsibility. The hon. member for Green Point referred us to many people who could be of service elsewhere. What he said about Robben Island was true and was perhaps to a greater extent true in respect of specific categories of prisoners elsewhere. Consequently I am not denying what he alleged in his argument. I also want to tell the hon. member that while he was on his feet, speaking, I thought to myself if only that fine upstanding young man had been a member of another party, imagine where he would have been then.

No, he would not have made any progress here.

I have already, in the absence of the hon. member for Pretoria West, replied to quite a few of the points which he raised, and I gave him credit for the good criteria which he laid down. In respect of one other matter which he raised, I just wish to say the following: The style of management of the Prison Service is impressive. In spite of staff problems, in spite of other restrictive factors which prevail, such as the point at which the service is being rendered, such as Robben Island, and a climate which has a restrictive effect, the style of management is geared to accepting no excuse for not achieving their objectives. It seems to me as if this is, to a great extent, working.

†The hon. member for Houghton referred to Pollsmoor. I should like to mention to the hon. member that Pollsmoor is serving 53 different courts in the Peninsula. She mentioned the figure of 1 000.

At least.

At least 1 000. The very purpose was to provide for such people. I can give the hon. member a breakdown, but I do not think it is necessary. The fact of the matter is that the intention was to provide for these people. It is not so that there are a thousand people waiting there all the time. There is a turnover. Perhaps I should just mention in passing that all the courts in the Peninsula are co-operating towards a situation where people standing trial would have to wait no longer than a couple of weeks. Already the awaiting trial period especially as far as the Supreme Court is concerned has been shortened considerably. I believe there was a time when it was much longer than the present period. At this point in time I think it has been reduced to three months.

How does that happen with a shortage of staff?

I will tell the hon. member how it happens because she was not here yesterday. We then explained to the Committee that the courts have succeeded in maintaining themselves notwithstanding the fact that there is a shortage of staff. There is a shortage of supporting staff especially in the magistrates’ court division, but in the Supreme Court and in the magistrates’ courts all the officers on the bench are qualified and all the positions are satisfactorily filled. I hope that answer satisfies the hon. member.

*The hon. member referred, inter alia, to the question of privileges. This causes me to associate myself once again with the standpoint that all prisoners must deserve their privileges. The implication of this statement is in fact that since we are now revising the privileges and have now made the classification the same for everyone, it means that whether a prisoner is now referred for a crime of violence or a security crime or whatever the crime may be, he is subjected to observation, classification and so on. Depending on the observation he is then classified into group B, C, D or A. His privileges are granted according to his classification. If a prisoner is initially in the lowest group, he can rehabilitate himself or work for greater privileges. This is a principle which will now apply throughout. The hon. member then asked a question in respect of visits, which are one of the privileges. I want to tell her at once that visits are in fact concerned with an attempt on our part to retain family ties. In reply to a question in the House of Assembly I pointed out to the hon. member that we went out of our way to ensure, in the case of Miss Kitson, that she saw enough of her father during the time she was here. What the hon. member perhaps overlooked was that contact visits, in the sense that it is possible to speak to a prisoner, are now available for everyone. Those contact visits, however, are granted solely at the discretion of the commanding officer of the prison upon individual applications and are also subject to the availability of facilities. The hon. member overlooked the fact that we have now made this available as well. What the hon. member also overlooked was that we previously did not allow children, but that children may now be allowed, at the discretion of the parent.

Very good.

The visit of a child under the age of five is not counted for the purposes of the calculation of the number of visits, which may be 30 visits per year by two persons each. Consequently, in respect of the overall situation, the question is whether this is an improvement or not. Of course it is an improvement, for now 30 visits per year by two persons each can be allowed, but not more than five visits per month. In other words, it is therefore possible for an overseas visitor to fit in five visits per month. What this amounts to is that ten persons may make those five visits. Previously it was only possible for 48 persons to visit a prisoner in a year, but at present it is possible for 60 persons to visit a prisoner. As far as we are concerned, this is as far as we can develop the policy. We think that it is an improvement and in particular that it is an incentive for the prisoner to strive for. In this way he can be rewarded if he has himself reclassified from category D to category B or category A. This applies to all other privileges.

It seems to me my time has expired, and in conclusion I just want to tell the hon. members for Green Point and Durban Central that they can consider themselves lucky that we did not get round to dealing with them. I thank the hon. member for Nelspruit and Verwoerdburg for very substantial contributions and I also thank the Committee for an interesting debate.

Votes agreed to.

The Committee rose at 18h27.