Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

That the subject of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to have leave to bring up an amended Bill.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, in the debate so far those hon members who are not in favour of this legislation have tried to create the impression that those of us who are in favour of the Bill being passed, are also in favour of the abuse of alcohol. That is a false argument. They have come with several arguments, all of them highly emotional. For instance, they say that people drive under the influence of liquor thereby causing death and injury on the roads. They have also implied that those who use alcohol and abuse it are the cause of the break-up of families. That is of course true, and we agree with that. I am sure every hon member in this House agrees with that. If they truly believe that the availability of wine, alcoholic drinks, necessarily bring about the abuse of alcohol, they should have the guts to stand up in this House and to say that they are in favour of the prohibition of the distribution of alcoholic drinks in toto. They cannot favour the use of alcoholic drinks by those who they themselves think can control the amounts that they buy or consume and then prohibit the distribution of alcoholic drinks to those whom they perceive in their own minds to be incapable of controlling the amounts that they buy and consume.

Those of us in favour of this Bill would like—I said it yesterday and with permission I want to repeat it—to see a sensible consumption of wine. We would like to see wine bought together with food so that wine and food may be consumed together. If the head of a family, or the person responsible for the buying of food, would like to buy a bottle of champagne in a supermarket because he or she has a happy event to celebrate at home, we support it. We would like to see …

Who is “we”?

I am talking for those who are in favour of the Bill. I am not talking for the PFP or the NP. I thought that that was perfectly clear to hon members. We should like to see many happy occasions celebrated at home, occasions like wedding anniversaries. [Interjections.] We should like to see those occasions celebrated within the family unit and not in some bar somewhere. That is where those who are not in favour of wine being distributed by supermarkets would prefer to see those occasions celebrated.

Can people not buy champagne in bottle stores?

I would prefer to see my wife, if we had an occasion to celebrate … [Interjections] … buy her bottle of champagne in the local supermarket rather than to have her go to some sleazy off-sales where these gentlemen would prefer it to be bought.

Nobody said that.

Nobody did.

They say now by way of interjection—and let them rather make their own speeches—that they would not like to see that. In that case, why not agree that champagne should be made available where my wife can buy it?

In a sleazy supermarket.

Yes, that can also be sleazy.

If the hon member were referring to my wife as being sleazy, I would take exception to it and I would ask the hon member to withdraw that remark and apologize. [Interjections.] Sir, I think there is a tendency in this House to be light-hearted about this Bill. I think we must deal with the matter far more seriously.

When one of my colleagues, who happens to be in favour of the Bill, referred to the fact that in France the use of alcohol had reached a certain level and others implied that it was excessive, he had difficulty in proving his statements. It is, however, true and generally accepted that for instance in a country like Russia, where there is a restriction on the availability not only of good wine but also of many other products in supermarkets, the level of alcohol abuse—and I dare any hon member to dispute it—is extremely high. In the case of Russia it is probably the highest in the entire world. [Interjections.] Anyone who does not agree with that, must be able to disprove it. If some other hon member has more information and knowledge on Russia than I have, he must display it in the House. [Interjections.]

There is another point I should like to make with regard to alcohol abuse. Several years ago there was a restriction on drinking hours in Australia. I understand that at six o’clock all bars and places where alcohol could be consumed were closed. That led to the notorious Australian “six o’clock swill”. We know that happened there. A large percentage of people when they left their offices, instead of going home to sit down with their wives and families and have a drink if they felt that way inclined, had to rush off to the nearest bar and before six o’clock down one, two, three or more drinks. Because they had such limited time, what did they do? They did not drink wine, they did not even necessarily drink beer, but they went for hard tack and, by the time they left that drinking house in order to go home, many of them were in no condition to do so. What did the authorities then do? In order to overcome the problem, they extended the hours. In other words, they made the facility more freely available. The result was that, and let anybody to disprove it, the problem of the “6 o’clock swill” no longer existed. People can now sit down and can restfully have a drink if they are that way inclined. There is now less drunkenness in that part of the world and there are fewer road accidents as a result of alcohol abuse. This is another example where the freer availability of alcohol has in fact been beneficial. [Interjections.]

I should therefore like to say that I and others who feel the same should like to see that alcohol is used responsibly, that it is appreciated, and that it is preferably used together with food at mealtime when one sits down and relaxes. Therefore I say I am in favour of supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the speech by the hon member for Wynberg. Despite the early hour, it again had the sparkle of the speech he made last night. It seems to me as if it stays with him.

During the debate thus far it has been very interesting to listen to the speeches by various hon members and to see often there was serious talking done, so that the House often had to be called to order. Sir, I am grateful that for the most part you said “Orde!” in Afrikaans, because when you said it in English I noticed that some hon members reacted somewhat confusedly.

Yesterday, while he was making his speech, one of the hon members of the CP reminded me of a conservative tortoise. A conservative tortoise is an entirely normal tortoise, except that it never crawls out of its “dop”, because it is afraid someone will drink it. The hon member for Langlaagte devoted his entire speech to trying to convince us that he was a teetotaller. It was interesting to see that the hon member for Pinelands had to remind him that he and his party all voted in favour of the amendment of the Act in 1979. We then realized that in fact he was not a teetotaller (“geheelonthouer”) but a total forgetter (“geheelvergeter”).

Nevertheless, it was interesting to see how hon members of the Opposition fell over themselves to show us how free they were to vote as they chose. In their enthusiasm to prove this, like the hon member for Langlaagte they were unable to resist the temptation to argue among themselves. It was remarkable that valid standpoints were put forward on this side of the House, while among hon members on the Opposition side dissension prevailed. All the Opposition parties wanted to be first to show us how independent-minded (“onkeerbaar”) they are by allowing a free vote, but all they were able to achieve was to show us that they are in fact uncontrollable (“onbeheerbaar”), and that is something we have known for a long time.

For the past two weeks we have on occasion been piloting as many as four or five pieces of legislation a day through this House. One had thought that this piece of legislation, which is in fact of a technical nature, would have been another of those pieces of legislation that would be soon disposed of without eliciting so much debate. The Opposition was so exuberant about this free vote of theirs that they overlooked the principles of the legislation entirely. It was as far back as 1979 that we introduced the principle of wine counters in supermarkets. At that time we debated the matter and agreed to it. The legislation before us at present concerns the question whether that concession should also be extended to those chain stores which at this stage have not kept up with those that are already selling wine. It is very clear to me that most of the experienced members on that side of the House overlooked this principle. True to the preamble of our constitution, we on this side of the House are promoting the free market system. The arguments advanced by the Opposition have little to do with the purpose of the legislation and I was amazed to see that experienced members on that side failed to understand the principle of the Bill. We are dealing here with an imbalance which has developed since we accepted the amendment in 1979, an imbalance in commerce which must be rectified now.

The only new principle in the legislation is the one concerning sparkling wine which may now also be sold over wine counters and supermarkets. Not one member who is opposed to the principle advanced any concrete arguments to support his standpoint, and I find this very odd. As the hon member for Wynberg said, the new arrangement now creates opportunities for a woman who does her shopping in supermarkets to buy sparkling wine there, too, and the man who never wants to enter a liquor store is also being afforded the opportunity to celebrate a festive occasion with sparkling wine, particularly sparkling wine produced in South Africa. The man who wants to commemorate his umpteenth wedding anniversary with a bottle of Grand Mousseux together with his wife is now being afforded the opportunity to buy a bottle of Grand Mousseux over the counter of a grocer’s store.

For many years Black people have had the right to buy cases of sorghum beer with their food. One cannot help asking why White people cannot have the same right to buy their traditional drink with their food. Like the hon member for Wynberg, I believe that this will not encourage our people to drink more wine, but will perpetuate a tradition that is well established here. We are now making it possible for the woman who tries to keep her husband away from hard liquor, to buy the wine herself. Previously, when the man had to go and buy the wine in the liquor store, he was perhaps unable to resist the temptation to buy hard liquor as well. Now the woman is at least being afforded the opportunity to buy the wine, and therefore it is unnecessary for the man even to go to a liquor store to buy hard liquor.

When we discussed this kind of legislation on a previous occasion I almost refrained from voting. Today, however, I have no alternative but to vote for this amending Bill. In the first place, we are hereby preventing a monopoly from arising in that there is a wine counter in only one group of chain stores, and in the second place we are rectifying the situation as far as sparkling wine is concerned. Sparkling wine is used for festive occasions in South Africa and it forms part of the good hostess’s menu for a special festive occasion, as the hon member for Wynberg indicated.

Finally, I wish to ask the hon members for Langlaagte, Waterberg, Rissik and Meyerton whether it is not true that when Christ was told that there was no more wine, he made some more. Was that extra wine not perhaps given to the guests, and perhaps to other people as well? Why, then, is that such a sin? As the hon member for Wynberg argued, what this amounts to is that one has to use these things with moderation.

As the hon member for Parktown intimated time and again by way of interjections, we in South Africa have major problems as far as drugs are concerned. They cannot be freely sold over the counter. Nevertheless, this does not prevent drug pedlars from peddling them. What is worse is that this does not prevent people from going out and looking for them. Therefore this is a problem which we cannot combat in any way. As far as the question of the distribution of liquor is concerned, there are indeed problems, but not insurmountable ones. I do not believe that the opponents of this legislation are being quite honest with themselves. The arguments against this legislation that they advanced do not convince me.

With a French surname like mine and with a pedigree which indicates that my forefathers came to the Cape many years ago, that they helped to establish the wine culture in the Cape, it would be difficult for me as a Transvaler not to want to perpetuate that tradition. For that very reason I believe that this is a tradition which is to South Africa’s benefit; which is to the benefit of the Cape and which will be in the interests of the wine industry. Accordingly, I take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Speaker, thus far the debate has covered a very wide field. At times it almost sounded as if certain hon members were advocating compulsory alcoholism on the one hand and total abolition on the other. That, of course, is by no means the point at issue.

The hon member for Wynberg, the hon member for Paarl, the hon member for Stellenbosch and, perhaps, a few other hon members as well who of course represent vested interests have also taken part in the debate. Due to the vested interests they represent one cannot take much note of their arguments.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, my time is very limited. The hon member has already had a turn to speak. If there is time later I may afford him the opportunity to put his question to me. [Interjections.]

Thus my opposition to this legislation has nothing to do with the so-called moral aspects to which reference has already been made. My opposition is based solely on principles that relate to what I believe in and, of course, what the Government states it believes in. In the democratic, capitalist system it is not the duty of the Government to act as protector of specific pressure groups. Karl Marx said that the ultimate outcome of democracy and of capitalism itself would be such that eventually one would be unable to distinguish between the major financial forces and the Government.

When it comes to legislation of this kind one can only stand amazed once again at the accuracy of Karl Marx’s predictions. Of course, it not democracy or the system of free enterprise that is wrong. Nor does this mean that Karl Marx was necessarily correct. It is only what this Government is doing here on the southern tip of Africa to both the democratic system and the capitalist system that is causing things to go wrong. The conference at the Carlton and the Good Hope conference also, of course, fueled hopes that the Government had rediscovered the system of free enterprise. However legislation such as this states clearly once again that the Government does not quite know what is going on.

Since we are referring to free enterprise, why is the distribution of beer not being included here as well; why only wine? After all, there are also people with vested interests in the beer industry. Moreover, we speak about wine as a product of the vine. What, then, about wine that is made from oranges, for example? The well-known and more than a century old tradition attaching to Muden orange wine exists in my constituency. Why can that orange wine not be sold in supermarkets as well? [Interjections.] Why are supermarkets singled out in terms of this legislation, whereas no mention is made of, say, cafés, pharmacies and garages? Why are all these enterprises not also allowed to sell wine? Therefore everything indicates that this legislation is aimed against the principles of the system of free enterprise.

The hon member for Vasco contends that one of the principles of legislation should be that it does not infringe existing rights. According to him that justifies the provision in the legislation that the number of outlets will be limited to the number belonging to the licence holder who controls the majority of outlets at the moment. This, of course, is a good principle, but what about the vested rights that were infringed upon when the Act was introduced originally? At that time there was gross interference with vested rights. When it originally made liquor store licences available the Government created a negotiable commodity, and it was by no means unusual for people to have to pay up to R100 000 to enter the retail liquor industry. However, supermarkets may now enter the retail liquor trade without paying anything, and that must surely infringe the existring rights of people who have paid large sums of money for their liquor licences.

Therefore it is purely for reasons of principle that I oppose this legislation. I think that this legislation attacks democracy and the system of free enterprise. In fact, it sounds to me like a total onslaught on both of those principles.

Mr Speaker, I just want to say to the hon member who has just resumed his seat that I appreciate the conviction with which he speaks. I recognize the fact that he is acting on what he honestly feels in regard to this matter and that he is very concerned about it. However, I wish to say that I do not share his concern, and I am not going to quote Karl Marx in my speech either. In fact, I want to come back to the hon member for Langlaagte.

I also want to come back to a matter raised yesterday by an hon member who sits next to me, ie the breakfast, that famous or notorious breakfast. As I understand the hon members of the CP, they are the people who want everything in the country to be preserved. They are the conservative people; they want to go back in the past to such an extent that it reminds one of certain psychological cases in regard to which it is said that the man or the child in question wants to return to the womb. They want to revert to the past; they want to preserve culture and they want to preserve the traditions and all the old customs. I would have thought that one of the finest customs of the old-time farmers was their breakfast of black coffee and “boerebeskuit”. That breakfast was usually eaten very early, about five o’clock in the morning. To my disappointment, however, what did I find? I found that these conservative people have now thrown everything overboard. They do not eat breakfast anymore; they now drink breakfast. They do not drink that breakfast at five o’clock in the morning, but at nine o’clock in the morning. They drink a breakfast of scrambled egg and champagne. I do not know whether the eggs were even cooked. I am told that some film stars drink the scrambled egg raw. Apparently it is good for the voice to drink it in that way, or perhaps there are other reasons. Whether the people at that breakfast cooked the eggs or merely scrambled them before drinking them together with the champagne, I cannot say. What I can say, however, is that if the hon member for Langlaagte was at that breakfast then I do not know how he could have said what he did. The hon member for Langlaagte is not present at the moment. [Interjections.] Perhaps, then, the hon member for Rissik can tell me whether the hon member for Langlaagte was at that breakfast. Was he present there? [Interjections.] Was he there? Answer me.

Sir, may I ask the hon member whether it is possible for him always to talk in his sleep?

Yes, sir. I can speak to them while I am asleep and while I am awake. Perhaps the hon member for Sunny-side would answer the question for me. Was the hon member for Langlaagte present at that breakfast?

Man, you are still sleeping.

Was he there? Those hon members must not tell me an untruth. They know that they may not lie in Parliament, and if they were to do so the Press would see them right. [Interjections.] If he was not there, I want to know why they did not invite him. Was he unwelcome; did they not want him there? Did the hon members arrange the breakfast behind his back?

Because these people, these conservative people, want to preserve all the fine traditions, I had thought that they would preserve the old traditional type of breakfast, but that is not what they are doing because they have a breakfast of champagne and eggs at nine o’clock in the morning. Nor is that the end of it, because with whom do they have their breakfast? They did not go off and have their breakfast in private, where people could not see them. One might have understood it if they had done that. But, they did it with the English-language Press, with the media, and that is the worst of all. They do not even keep it among themselves; this mighty English-language Press, which can publicize these events throughout the world, was also there. There are the people with whom they have breakfast.

If one does not want liquor to be advertised, particularly so early in the morning, then surely one would go off alone to eat or drink anything of that kind. However, if one invites the English-language Press one is not trying to keep it dark. Surely then one is not trying to keep liquor away from the children, the housewives and the rest of the population, nor is one trying to have liquor sold only at a few out-of-the-way outlets up dark streets. No, one is advertising liquor and furthering its image by way of the mighty English Press. One is promoting its image to such an extent that every woman and child, and every member of the various population groups, can see what conservative people do. That is what is done by the people who want to be conservative, and if they may do that, those people who really want to preserve everything, why should other, normal people not do so? That is the gravest charge one can lay against these people who are supposedly conservative. If this is the way they want to preserve and retain the rest of the things in South Africa, whereas in this case they show how little they think of our traditions by not eating breakfast, but simply drinking it, then I say that I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I represent a constituency in which problems have been experienced over the years, and are still being experienced, which are very strongly suspected to have a great deal to do with the availability of liquor and the number of outlets within a particular area. From the nature of the case, the Green Point constituency falls in an area which is visited by holiday-makers or by people who come to spend their free time there after hours, and so on. It is also an area in which the business areas are situated in close proximity to the residential areas. These are all factors which make these problems much worse in a constituency such as mine than they might be in other areas where the residential areas are physically more distinct from the business areas. It is interesting, therefore, to observe what happens in a constituency such as mine, because the problems which may exist in other areas are more prominent there.

Sooner or later, virtually every liquor outlet in such an area is surrounded by a crowd of people who do not know any better than to buy a 4,5 litre or a 2 litre container of wine, or a bottle if they do not have enough money, to consume it all there and then and to make a nuisance of themselves in the neighbourhood, thereby creating a problem for the general public. We cannot deny the existence of this problem. In fact, I think it is known to us all that such situations occur.

I do not believe that in order to approach or resolve such a problem, one can take drastic steps, for example, by closing every liquor outlet. Investigations have been conducted in the Sea Point/Green Point area. For example, there are 11 such outlets within a fairly short distance. One cannot simply close such outlets, for even under these circumstances, one has to take vested interests into consideration to a certain extent. I have said that one has to take them into consideration to a certain extent, but if matters get completely out of hand, of course, it may be necessary to take more drastic action. Against the background of these problems which we experience, is it wise to create the possibility of more outlets, while we are not yet sure to what extent the problem which may exist in those areas may we aggravated? If the number of outlets is increased, where is this going to be allowed? Once again, it will be in the suburban areas, where there is an increasing tendency for supermarkets in particular to be established in or near a residential area, outside the central business district. Now those supermarkets may also become liquor outlets. Are we not going to create the same problems in those areas to some extent? These questions all deserve serious consideration. The question is, therefore, to what extent the availability of liquor is going to influence the consumption or abuse of liquor. When I was a child, there was a song we used to sing: “Die kerk en die ‘bar’ staan langs mekaar, ’n pennie vir die kerk en ’n pond vir die ‘bar’.” Unfortunately, this is a song which reflects reality in many areas. The mere fact that liquor outlets are within easy reach of people has an effect on the abuse of liquor. The people who abuse liquor may be a very small percentage of the total number of people who buy liquor at such a place, but it is a phenomenon which cannot be entirely ignored.

I am glad to see that the hon member for Maitland, who took part in the debate yesterday, is present. In 1979, he also took part in the discussion of a private member’s motion which dealt specifically with the question of social evils and crime in the Green Point/Sea Point area. We all know that that motion was introduced by the then hon member for Cape Town Gardens. He is in the diplomatic service today, and one is not quite sure where he is at the moment. He actually introduced the motion to embarrass the hon member for Sea Point and myself, the representatives of those areas in this House. Hon members who supported his motion, including the hon member for Maitland, the then hon member for Durbanville, who is now the Administrator of the Cape Province, and others all quoted figures on the occurrence of drunkenness among the public in those areas. They also quoted figures on the occurrence of less serious crimes as a result of drunkenness in those areas. Some of the speakers got very serious about the matter and said that if the local authority of Cape Town and the local MPs did not want to do anything about the matter, the Government would have to do something about it. The hon member is the only one of those members who is left in this House today, and I want to ask him today what his Government has done about the problem since then. What has the Government done to improve in any way that situation in Green Point, Sea Point, Cape Town Gardens or any other urban area which is afflicted by that problem? The answer is undoubtedly: “Absolutely nothing.”

What have the MPs done?

That hon member will be faced with that problem himself. With this legislation, and especially with the predecessor of this legislation, hon members are at least creating the possibility—I do not want to go so far as to say that I am convinced that it is going to aggravate the position—that that problem may be aggravated. Hon members must take cognizance of this.

The hon member for Maitland got quite excited yesterday about the “wonderful” qualities of wine.

†The hon member became quite excited about the “virtues” of wine. He said that it was a wonderful drink and that it is of historical and cultural significance. He became quite turned on. But I suppose he is inclined to that sort of thing after he was refused permission to visit Australia. I sympathize with him. He stressed that his intention was to tell the people in Australia about the exciting events that were taking place in South Africa. He presumably referred to constitutional developments. One can only assume that the hon member must have a very low threshhold of pleasure. I can conceive situations where it is very convenient to have a low threshhold of pleasure. Whether it is more appropriate in the constitutional process or the distribution of liquor to have that type of characteristic, I do not know. The Aga Kahn and King Solomon would probably have wished to have the opposite qualifications.

*The hon member for Paarl referred to the distinction that had been drawn by the Government by way of a decision they had taken about the type of liquor which should be sold in supermarket and shops where food is sold. He made the point that this was a question of which type of liquor was enjoyed with food. As far as this was concerned, the Government decided to make wine available in this way. It is interesting to see that sparkling wine is now being included in this category. This may be a sign that hon members on that side of the House are developing a tendency to enjoy sparkling wine with their food. Beer, strangely enough, is not included. I am somewhat suspicious when such a fine distinction is drawn and it is alleged that wine should rather be consumed with food. Beer is not good enough yet, but sparkling wine is. I am not so sure whether sparkling wine goes so well with food on festive occasions. It is mostly drunk separately. Some hon members wax lyrical about the housewife who takes a bottle of sparkling wine from the shelf and puts in on top of the toilet paper or the cornflakes in the trolley and handles it in a loving way. Then one gets somewhat suspicious. I wonder whether hon members will get any food when they come home if such a situation is created.

The argument advanced by the hon member for Paarl, that people should be educated to use liquor correctly, to drink wine with their food, for example, is a valid one.

So you are in favour of it.

Yes, I am quite in favour of enjoying wine with one’s food in a meaningful way. However, I do not think the Government is going about it in the right way if that is what they want to achieve. The mere fact that a housewife is able to buy liquor in a supermarket instead of in a bottle store makes very little difference. The restrictions and exceptions prescribed in the Liquor Act, as well as the racket which was built up around the question of licences in the past, tend rather to complicate the situation. In many European countries, for example, one can have a light lunch at any time of the day and enjoy a glass of wine with it. I have no problem with that. As a result of the provisions of the Liquor Act, it is very difficult for a restaurant which does not cater for the wealthier classes in our country to obtain a liquor licence. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for a restaurant, or let us call it a corner café, which may provide light meals at a very low price, to obtain a liquor licence which enables it to make wine available to people. Therefore we are not creating a situation where the less wealthy people in this country are being given an opportunity to enjoy wine with their food. That is not what we are doing now. That is not what is achieved by this Bill or by the Liquor Act. Therefore I do not believe that the argument of the hon member for Paarl is valid in this respect. That is the problem I have with it.

Finally, I believe, I must refer to the extent to which we are bluffing ourselves when we debate this Bill, where hon members give different interpretations to the purpose of the Bill. One must ask oneself: What is the purpose of this Bill? What is the purpose of those who have made representations about the Bill? It is their purpose to increase the consumption of liquor. Can anyone deny that? Can anyone deny the fact that it is the purpose of this Bill to make liquor more readily available, thereby giving rise to at least a potential increase in the consumption of liquor? I think one must be quite honest and concede that this is the intention.

Not the consumption of liquor, but the consumption of wine.

Yes, and sparkling wine. When one looks at the second clause of the Bill, one sees that it does not deal only with sparkling wine, but that outlets generally will be increased, as a result of which liquor will be more freely available. Then one must come to the conclusion that this Bill will inevitably cause the number of liquor outlets to increase and that for this reason, liquor consumption will also increase.

When one has to decide about the standpoint which one should adopt on this Bill, one should not bluff oneself. One should not bluff oneself by believing that people are now simply going to buy their liquor at a different place. The whole principle of marketing in supermarkets is to display goods in such a way that every housewife, unless she is extremely disciplined, will walk out of that supermarket with something which she did not intend to buy when she walked in. There is no doubt about that. The same will apply with regard to liquor, therefore. Consequently we must bear this in mind when we support this Bill. I am going to vote against the Bill for the simple reason that I do not believe that a good case has been made out for a further increase in the number of liquor outlets. I am thoroughly and even painfully aware of the problems that have been created at existing outlets, also in the light of where they are situated, and I know that not enough attention has been given to these problems and that their causes have not been sufficiently investigated. For this reason, there are few if any members in this House who can say with any certainty today that this Bill will not lead to greater or at least more widespread abuse of liquor at the additional outlets which may be created as a result of this Bill. Consequently I shall vote against the Bill.

One thing is certain: After this discussion, Bacchus will not know whether to laugh or cry. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, this has been a long drawn-out debate. When we came to the end of the day’s proceedings at six o’clock yesterday afternoon, I thought to myself that if it had been a Wednesday, and we were to have convened again later in the evening, with a few of the hon members having had the opportunity of doing their “practical”, we would perhaps have encountered greater enthusiasm for both sides of the argument.

What this debate has proved is that there is a great difference of opinion on the subject of liquor; a great difference of opinion, but also a great deal of confusion and ignorance. We have listened to many divergent standpoints which cover a very wide field and which, in many cases, had little to do with the statutory amendment. I need only refer to the last hon speaker. He said he was opposed to any extension of marketing outlets and would consequently vote against the legislation. Making marketing outlets available, however, is in no way affected by this legislation.

That is not true.

Of course it is true. It is in no way a question of making marketing outlets available. What is the statutory amendment all about. It is simply concerned with defining natural wine in such a way as to also allow this, by implication, to include sparkling wine. Yesterday evening the hon member for Stellenbosch pointed out that the present definition of natural wine in the legislation leaves room for confusion and that it would theoretically be possible, in terms of the existing Act, to sell sparkling wine in grocery stores even now. To eliminate all doubts, however, we are now coming along with a clear definition of what comprises a natural wine in this class. The implication is that it also includes sparkling wine. I notice that some newspapers use the word “bubbly”. I personally prefer “sparkling wine”. It is, after all, not a wine containing a lot of bicarbonate of soda that makes it go all “bubbly”; it is a noble wine much better suited to the description “sparkling wine”. The first amendment is therefore merely a clearer definition of natural wine, with a view to enabling grocers with grocers’ wine licences to sell sparkling wine as well.

The statutory amendment—and I shall be coming back to this repeatedly—does not envisage making liquor more freely available. The fact of the matter is that liquor is freely available today. I have frequently said in the past—here in the House too—that liquor is so freely available that it is as far from the average consumer as is his telephone. He can simply pick up his telephone, order liquor and have it delivered. So liquor is indeed freely available. In this connection I want to link up with the argument raised earlier by the hon member for Wynberg, ie that if hon members are opposed to this statutory amendment they should be consistent and also consider the implications of what they are advocating. [Interjections.] I shall be coming back to that. What I want to make clear here, however, is that this statutory amendment does not concern the principle of grocers’ wine licences. That principle was incorporated in the Act as far back as 1964. Grocers’ wine licences are today granted by the Liquor Board on the basis of the merits of a case.

Nor does this statutory amendment, secondly, deal with the extension of liquor sales to other types of liquor such as fortified liquor or beer. It only deals with the existing class of natural wines for which grocers’ wine licences were originally introduced. That class, however, is now being defined in such a way that there can be no misunderstanding and so that it can also, of course, include sparkling wine. Nor does it deal with the acquisition of licences or further marketing outlets.

This statutory amendment is attempting to lay down uniform rules for all persons or bodies having grocers’ wine licences. It is trying to eliminate the present discrimination between various groups by making the principles in regard to grocers’ wine licences as uniform as possible. It does not merely deal with one specific group. I shall be coming back to that again at a later stage. It deals with any person or body having grocers’ wine licences, up to a maximum of 36 per person or body. It therefore applies to everyone, and not this or that group, as the hon member for Barberton wanted to intimate. That applies to any applicant or undertaking.

Mr Speaker, may I please put a question to the hon the Minister?

Mr Speaker, at a later stage when I get round to the hon member— and I would like to get round to him—I shall give him an opportunity to put a question; at any rate, if at that stage I am still in the mood to do so.

Whether you are in the mood or not, I am still going to ask the question.

I do not intend to reply to every hon member who spoke. I think that many of the hon members dealt with one another’s arguments and put forward counter-arguments, and I therefore want to confine myself to those matters relating to the statutory amendment. To start off with I do, however, want to refer to a few general matters which were raised by several speakers and given attention in the debate.

I think I speak on behalf of everyone who supports this statutory amendment, but perhaps did not make such specific mention of this fact, when I say that the abuse of alcohol, alcoholism and all the comcomitant social evils are matters that disturb us all. That is something we all have very strong feelings about, and the impression must therefore not be left that those who support the Bill feel in any way less strongly about the necessity of combating these shocking social conditions.

We must also draw a very clear distinction between the orderly, civilized and responsible use of liquor and its abuse. I respect those whose standpoint is one of total abstinence. I accept the fact that there are people who, for specific reasons, can feel so strongly about liquor that they do not want to partake of it at all. Those who are in favour of the orderly and civilized use of liquor, but have not expressed themselves in favour of this legislation or have opposed it, involuntarily make me ask myself whether that standpoint is not possibly being adopted here for reasons of political expediency. [Interjections.] I want to tread warily when it comes to a matter which, for the majority of hon members, is a serious one, and therefore I want to choose my words carefully. I do not want to accuse any hon member of not having acted in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, but if there are members who readily, in a sound and responsible manner, do partake of liquor, yet stand up here to oppose a minor amendment to the Act, under the guise of its supposedly promoting liquor abuse and alcoholism, I ask myself whether those arguments are not being adopted for reasons of political expediency. [Interjections.]

There were altogether too many arguments which had nothing whatsoever to do with the legislation and whose logic could probably be questioned. Let me now, however, come to a fundamental problem which was put forward here and about which many hon members expressed opinions, ie the reason that led many hon members to express opposition to the legislation. Briefly it relates to the fact that it is alleged that this legislation, however slightly, nevertheless does imply a larger availability of liquor. It is also said that availability is related to consumption and that consumption leads to abuse and alcoholism. Because there is, in the minds of many hon members, that sequence of logic, they are opposed to this legislation. The first thing I want to say in this connection is that it struck me that not a single hon member who, in some or other way, had recourse to this argument, stood up here and said that it was with the same conviction that he was also opposed to any further liquor licensing in South Africa and that he would work towards having the granting of any further liquor licences limited, nor that he would be consistent—in that connection the hon member for Wynberg also made an appeal to hon members— in saying that if he supported the argument that consumption led to abuse, he should also direct his efforts towards opposing and attempting to discourage, as far as possible, efforts to have liquor made available in South Africa.

In regard to this argument I should like to state that we are living in a very complex world and that there are social problems of a very complex nature at many levels of society. In my view it is therefore imprudent, even irresponsible, to try to offer simplistic or simple solutions for social problems that are as complex as those we are talking about. Quite a few sweeping statements were made in this debate about the detrimental effects of the abuse of liquor, statements with which we can agree in general terms, but also statements about the supposed connection between consumption and abuse. I have also read up on this matter and can at least quote a few sources here in my references to this difficult subject. The fact of the matter is that there is great confusion about both the causes of the problem and the method of handling or treating the evils of alcoholism or liquor abuse. One of the most important matters about which there is no—I emphasize “no”—convincing scientific evidence, is specifically the so-called argument relating to consumption and abuse, an argument which states that the greater availability of liquor necessarily leads to greater consumption which in turn will, of necessity, allegedly lead to the greater abuse of liquor. There is no scientific evidence proving any positive correlation in this connection. It is indeed a very useful argument, a simplistic argument because it is easy to understand. It can very easily be employed in an emotional way, giving in many cases the appearance of great social involvement. It is, of course, also an argument that could very easily be used for moralizing purposes.

Let us take note of a few of the findings in this connection.

†The World Health Organization’s expert committee on problems related to alcohol consumption reported in 1980. The World Health Organization, the hon member for Parktown will know, favours restriction on the consumption of alcohol. After investigating the subject, however, they came to the conclusion, and I quote:

*Even World Health Organization questions the logic of the argument that limiting the availability of liquor will necessarily be addressing the problems we are so unanimous about here in expressing our conviction that they should be combated.

†A commission appointed by the Scottish Home Office found that all indications of alcohol abuse, including drunken driving and cirrhosis, were two to seven times greater in Scotland than in England and Wales despite more stringent restrictions in Scotland and comparable overall consumption levels. They laid the blame in part on restricted licensing and urged the creation of more classes of liquor licences to permit a greater variety of outlets, and also recommended the extension of permitted drinking hours.

A 1980 study by a doctor at Temple University in the USA looked at the problems experienced in that country, and found in his research that no—I stress “no”—correlation existed between outlets per capita, taxes, State control, and even local prohibition, and overall consumption.

Finally, in a 1975 article for the British Journal of Addictions three pro-control experts from Canada conceded that widely used control methods in Canada such as the State monopoly system, restrictions on the number and type of retail outlets, and hours of sale were not powerful deterrents to the prevalence of alcoholism. Like the hon member for Parktown did yesterday, they suggested that taxation should be used. They contend that higher prices will reduce consumption and the problems.

*Let us for a moment discuss the argument of increased prices. That is the argument strongly advanced yesterday by the hon member for Parktown. Firstly it would discourage those people for whom liquor was not a problem, the people who would find it easier to make that sacrifice because liquor was not a problem as far as they were concerned or because they had no need to partake of liquor. Those would be the first people who would be eliminated by increased costs.

Those who are well off are not, however, the only people who partake of liquor or even abuse it. There are also the poor people who, through sensible use, can obtain enjoyment from this bounteous gift. Why make it exclusively a rich man’s prerogative? There is enough evidence that alcoholism is not an economically-linked disease necessarily attaching to low-priced alcohol. In fact, as an argument price has even less of a bearing on this amendment, because whisky, for example, is a high-priced product. It is an up-market product. So price as an argument should, as far as the hon member is concerned carry even less weight in this connection.

It is interesting to note that in the Soviet Union, notwithstanding extensive restrictions on the consumption of liquor and extremely high prices, there is a serious alcohol problem. The same applies to Sweden where, as in the Soviet Union, high consumer prices have led to consumers turning increasingly to brewing or manufacturing their own liquor. According to Swedish government statistics 25% of all wine and 20% of all other spirits consumed in Sweden are homebrewed products.

We must also remember that the arguments advanced here about liquor abuse relate to a small percentage of the population. The overall majority of the consumer public are not people who are guilty of alcohol abuse.

†I should like to quote the conclusion arrived at by Mr F A Meister in a recent speech on alcohol abuse because I agree with his statement wholeheartedly. He said, inter alia:

*As I said earlier, we live in a complex world in which the social, psychological and spiritual interaction is becoming increasingly difficult to comprehend. Let us respect one another’s views in this connections, but let us equally not try, by way of superficial and simplistic arguments, to pull the wool over one another’s eyes.

About the consistency of the arguments of those who are going to vote against this legislation, I should just briefly like to make the following remarks. If they want to be consistent in their opposition to liquor being made available, as I said earlier, I also expect them to state in this House that they are opposed to any further licensing taking place. In the latest year under review, 1983, 751 new licences were granted in various categories. In South Africa at present there are 6 108 licensed premises, with 154 grocers’ licences. Within the perspective of this overall picture, there is no sense in conducting a debate about an amendment of this nature on the basis that it would allegedly promote a greater availability of liquor. If the hon member for Parktown is opposed to liquor being made available, why did he not advocate that no further licences be granted? Why does he not adopt the standpoint that the existing 6 100 licences be withdrawn and that we have total prohibition in the country? Because that is after all, the logical consequence of such a standpoint. I find myself, within the Reformed-Calvinistic tradition, adopting the personal standpoint, in contrast with the view of abstinence prevalent in the Middle Ages, that God’s bounteous gifts are there to be enjoyed in His honour. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik must not challenge me to debate this subject with him on a personal level. The hon member must not challenge me to speak about his standpoints in this connection.

Do you think I am scared of you?

For centuries now the Church has adopted the standpoint that responsible and civilized use must be accepted, whilst abuse be rejected. The Church’s standpoint is that the substance itself is not sinful. The fault does not lie with the matter itself. What is involved here is actually a broken relationship. In this connection it is interesting to note that synods of the Dutch Reformed Church have repeatedly refused to express an opinion about the availability of liquor or an opinion in favour of stricter measures to limit the availability of liquor. Recently there was, for example, a proposal before the Synod that liquor should not be made available in the Kruger National Park. The Synod, however, rejected that request. The standpoint that is adopted is that the problem does not lie in the liquor as such. It lies with the person himself, the person who partakes of liquor, and it is therefore the person himself whom we must address. An ex-professor of mine at Stellenbosch, Prof P A Verhoef, said in his readable little work on the Church that we should not try to be more pious than the Scriptures themselves. Bread and wine was the traditional food in every home in old Israel.

What I am therefore saying is that if we want to be consistent in speaking about the abuse of wine as a God-given gift, we must also pay attention to abuses occurring in other spheres, for example the misuse of money and goods and the materialistic gain and selfishness that go hand in hand with it. That does greater damage in our society than we would like to acknowledge. Then there are also the evils inherent in the breakdown in the social fabric as a result of distorted sexual and marital relationships. We must surely not pretend that one commodity alone is responsible for the imperfect reality in which we live. When all is said and done, the fruit of the vine is a noble product, the history of which reaches back to Biblical times.

The State, however, also has a responsibility.

Of course the State also has a responsibility, just as that hon member has a responsibility in his own home, and just as every parent, every community, every church and every school also has a responsibility. What we must promote is the orderly and civilized use of liquor. As far as that is concerned, each of us has a responsibility. The child who grows up with liquor hidden away somewhere in a wardrobe has much less chance of acting responsibly when exposed to it at a later stage in his life.

I should like to come now to a few speeches. In the very interesting speeches which were made here and in which diverse standpoints came to the fore, there were unfortunately two—perhaps I should say two and a half—discordant notes that I should also like to come round to mentioning. I have again read the unbelievably confused and disjointed speech of the hon member for Langlaagte. I should like to know whether that is the standpoint with which the CP identifies itself. In their opposition to this statutory amendment today, is that the standpoint they are going to support? Let me give an example of this. The hon member says the Competition Board’s report is opposed to vertical integration.

Of course it is.

The hon member went on to say:

I then asked the hon member whether I had abolished vertical integration, in reply to which he said:

Mr Speaker, may I reply to the hon the Minister?

No, yesterday the hon member spoke for a long time. He must now sit down so that I can deal with him.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, I am not prepared to answer a question.

The hon the Minister is scared to answer the question.

In his confused thinking the hon member cannot even convey his argument logically to the House, because the Competition Board proposed that vertical integration be done away with, and last year the Government issued a very long, unequivocable Press statement about the whole matter, a Press statement the hon member apparently did not take note of. It was a seven-page Press statement which enjoyed wide Press coverage and in which the Government made a pronouncement in regard to the recommendations of the board, setting out why, for very good reasons, the Government could not accept the board’s recommendations. In that respect is this statutory amendment related to the elimination of integration? In fact, it is specifically because the liquor industry is so integrated at present, owing to historical and other factors, that one cannot pursue the ideal of separation in regard to one aspect, whilst relinquishing it in regard to another. The statutory amendment specifically wishes to state consistently that we are faced with a situation in which integration is a reality, a fact we cannot escape from, and therefore we are at least trying to be consistent in regard to grocers’ wine licences in the sense of removing the restriction that makes it impossible for specific groups to obtain more than 36 licences.

For two specific groups.

For any group, because that restriction will now not be applicable to any group. That is, however, the type of argument presented to the House in the name of the logic with which that hon member wants to gainsay the legislation.

I do not want to devote too much time to the hon member’s speech, because I do not think it worth it. He comes with arguments such as the following:

Is the hon member accusing me of the fact that I do not have any knowledge of the Act or its implementation?

Relatively little.

Is the hon member accusing me of acting dishonourably, of having taken decisions that resulted in profits for certain companies? That is the implication of his argument. Fortunately there is no hon member in the House, or any member of the public, who takes much notice of the remarks of that hon member, and I therefore leave his speech at that.

I have already dealt in part with the hon member for Barberton. In the first place he wants to pretend that this legislation only makes provision for large groups. Then he simply takes the opportunity of giving large groups a few undeserved brickbats. I want to tell the hon member very clearly that the Government has repeatedly put its standpoint, expressing its concern at the large degree of concentration in the South African economy, and we have dealt with that in various ways, by way of the Competition Board and its recommendations. Two reports of the board have just recently been made available to hon members, and I would appreciate it if hon members took note of what the board is doing in this connection. In regard to this argument I just wanted to tell the hon member that he is playing a dangerous game if he is trying to insinuate that a group is necessarily bad by virtue of being a big group.

I did not insinuate that.

I am very grateful if the hon member did not do so, and I accept it as such. I want to warn against such an attitude, because it is a standpoint that some people adopt. We must not summarily pass judgment on groups such as those to which the hon member referred yesterday, eg Pick and Pay and Checkers. The hon member has a good legal background and does not lack competence in that field. He surely knows that a legal man does not convict without a trial. In terms of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act, the basis on which the hearing must take place is that the body being charged must truly have conducted itself in such a manner as to prejudice competition. We must also remember that the big groups in this country were also once small groups. In commerce I can refer to many large groups that had a small beginning. They started off as the shop on the corner, the one-man business, and thence grew to large giants in the private sector. Must we now drag down small groups that grew in stature merely because they did grow in stature? Must the fast runner be penalized merely because he runs faster than others? We must be very careful about this argument. The hon member for Barberton’s argument that the Bill only makes provision for the big man and actually prejudices the small man, is simply not true at all. I have here the report of the Small Business Development Corporation and want to ask hon members please to take note of it. I have asked the corporation to make the report available to every member. It is a report on its activities and services. In the short period of the corporation’s existence, it has financed almost 2 000 undertakings. Almost 2 000 business undertakings have, by now, been assisted by the corporation in various ways. So there are various campaigns being initiated, both as far as competition and the interests of the small businessman are concerned. They are both cornerstones of our free-enterprise system. We must make responsible statements in dealing with these matters.

Since I am talking about competition, let me take the opportunity to announce that Prof S J Naude has been designated by the Cabinet as the new full-time chairman of the Competition Board in place of Dr Mouton who has retired. Prof Naude will take up his duties on 1 May 1984.

I want to tell the hon member for Barberton—and I hope he will concede as much—that in South Africa there is room for both the large and small entrepreneurs. We must look to the interests of both.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

Unfortunately I do not have the time.

†The hon member for Constantia would have disappointed me greatly had he spoken against this measure, because Constantia is so famous for its wine that he would have done that part of the country an injustice had he done so. I am glad to know that he will be supporting the Bill. He made mention of a matter which was raised by a number of other hon members and I would just briefly like to come back to it. The hon member for Constantia, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and others said that the Government discriminates against beer. There are certainly many sides to an argument and I do not for one moment say that I can cover all the arguments in the time available to me, but I would like hon members also to keep in mind when they talk about discrimination in the field of liquor distribution, that SA Breweries has a total monopoly. There is only one brewery in South Africa.

It should not be allowed.

The only competitor was removed in 1979 when the new group was formed. Since then SA Breweries has been the only brewery in South Africa. Furthermore, it must also be kept in mind that SA Breweries has a 33% shareholding in Cape Wine. That gives them a very strong position as a share-holder in the main producer/wholesaler group in this country. Thirdly they have a very strong retail arm in their hotels and hotel off-sales. I am not even referring to their liquor licences or the grocers’ liquor licences.

Why does the Government not allow beer in grocery stores? I would like to advance to three arguments for this although there are more. The hon member for Paarl referred to the fact that we favour the wine-and-food concept. If the hon member for Green Point has not heard about the concept of champagne with your dessert, he should try it. It goes well with that. I make no bones about the fact that the Government also takes regional and agriculture interests into consideration in taking a decision on this.

*I want to make it clear—I said so in my statement last year—that the Government also takes agricultural and regional interests into consideration in decisions involving the liquor trade. I do not want to go into the value that a large brewery such as South African Breweries has as far as the provision of jobs and the South African economy are concerned. It is enormous. One must not forget, however, that the economy of the Western Cape largely depends on the deciduous fruit industry and therefore also on the wine industry. If this industry does not have the necessary protection, this does not only affect a few wine farmers, but the whole economy of the Western Cape. It affects more than 345 000 employees and their dependants, and it affects several towns and communities. It is therefore also necessary for the Government to take wider interests into consideration when it comes to the decisions it takes.

Hon members glibly speak of existing interests. They must also realize the implications of such a step as far as the existing retail network in South Africa is concerned. It is a network that has furnished the community with a service for many years now. We aim at a system of free enterprize and a market-related economy, but with due regard to interests that have been built up over a period of decades. Hon members are frequently under the impression that the liquor industry, in particular the retail sector, is such a profitable industry. That may well have been the case, but it is no longer true. Studies conducted annually, by the University of Pretoria, into the profit margins of liquor marketing outlets furnish incontrovertible proof that the industry does not do all that well at all. There are a few at certain growth points that perhaps do better than others, but seen as a whole it is not an industry that can boast large profit margins.

What would be the implications, as far as the existing trading sector is concerned, of having beer in grocery stores? Hon members must discuss this with organizations very closely involved in all this. We want to take sensible action and take the broader public interest into consideration. We also want to try to take action in such a way as to maintain stability in the industry.

The hon members for Stellenbosch and Paarl also referred to the question of imported wine. One must never lose sight of the fact that South Africa is an important trading country. In fact, our total imports and exports, expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, puts South Africa sixteenth on the list of the greatest trading countries in the world. Trade is not merely a one-way street. It implies two-way traffic, that there must be imports and exports. South African trade takes place in accordance with various trade agreements. This is of great importance to us. Bearing in mind again that as far as the Western Cape is concerned, this region is largely dependent on the exporting of deciduous fruit and related products such as dried fruit, canned fruit, and also wine and wine products, let me issue the warning that this is a situation that one has to handle with great circumspection. The KWV, as the responsible body, is engaged in negotiations with the Government on these matters. We must act in such a way as to promote the best interests of both our importers and our exporters.

Nor do I want to miss the opportunity of extending a word of admonition to our importers by way of a warning The Government is keeping a sharp eye on the situation, and if cheap, underpriced wine is dumped here, we will be compelled to take action. I want to appeal to importers to take the interests of both the consumer and the producer into consideration, and also their own interests. We cannot allow dumped products to cause great disruption in the South African industry. I also want to appeal to the producers, commerce and the consumers to show greater loyalty to our own products. I cannot imagine a Frenchman in France not being proud to drink his own product or offer it to a guest. In regard to several matters we in South Africa, however, are still too inclined to think that imported products are better than our own. There are good reasons why imported products should at times also have a place, and I am not inveighing against imported products, but I am advocating that we display greater loyalty to our own products which, where price is concerned, can time and again beat the best from overseas.

The hon member for Stellenbosch expressed a word of thanks to the Liquor Board for the work it is doing and for the responsible manner in which it grants grocers’ wine licences. I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Stellenbosch’s friendly remarks. If one thinks of the reasonably emotional debate that took place here, one realizes how emotionally laden the question of liquor is, particularly when personal interests are also at issue. That is why the Liquor Board has a difficult task. It does, however, carry this out with great circumspection and discretion. It takes firm but fair action. I want to give hon members the assurance that in the time in which it has thus far been my privilege to be responsible for the Liquor Board and its activities, I can but attest to the fact that it has consistently carried out its task in a manner that has also commanded the respect of the general public.

So it is a pity that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central made a few unfriendly, even unsavoury, remarks about a very highly valued member of that board.

†He spoiled a good speech with a derogatory remark. I do not know why the hon member tried to be malicious. He could have asked me questions regarding the member concerned, but there was no reason to be malicious. The fact is that this particular member is doing a sterling job on that board.

Was it a political appointment?

All the members of the board are appointed by the Minister. The member concerned is, however, extremely competent to do that work. He has in-depth knowledge of local government. He was, on occasion, mayor of Port Elizabeth. He also served on the Provincial Council for a long time. He therefore has a knowledge of provincial matters. He also served in this House. He therefore has wide experience of all branches of government service. I can also add that everyone who has come to know him regards him as a very pleasant person. He has not, in any event, spewed forth as much enmity as has the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. I also have it on good authority that he has special knowledge of the local government system, particularly that of the Cape Province. The board is not constituted with a view to merely including knowledgeable people of a particular kind. We do not want brewers or producers on the board, but rather people who can interpret public opinion and can reflect the public interest. There are people on the board who can judge legal aspects. There are also people who can put forward the views of the police. As a whole the board forms a body that can make knowledgeable judgments about these licences. I reiterate that evidence gathered over a period of a few years proves that this board is furnishing an excellent service.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether I attacked the person concerned or whether I had simply, firstly, queried the fact that his appointment was on a political basis, and, secondly, that he had no special knowledge of liquor? I do not believe I attacked him personally. What I was attacking was the system of appointment.

If that is correct, then the hon member did it in such a strange manner that one could gain the impression that he was making a veiled attack on the person concerned. I am prepared, however, to give him the benefit of the doubt. I want to point out to him that no person is appointed to the board on the basis of his knowledge of liquor. As far as I am concerned, he could even be a teetotaller. He is appointed on the basis of his knowledge of public life, of local and provincial systems of government, and must be able to pass sound judgment on the acceptability or otherwise of an application. That is not all that easy a task. For the hon member’s information I just want to mention that last year the board met for 98 full days. I have details here of how many meetings were held per month, where and when they were held, etc. The board has an excellent chairman, Mr Tommy Vorster. He is a slave-driver, because on many nights the board sits until midnight to deal with applications.

†The hon member made another rather sweeping statement when he asked why small hotels do not get their applications through the Liquor Board. There might be exceptions, but I am not aware of that. There are 1 384 hotels and I am not ware of one that has problems in that respect. If the hon member is aware of one, then he should feel free to approach me. However, to make the remark in such a way as to besmear or discredit the board is certainly not justified.

The hon member for Hillbrow asked me whether anyone can qualify for a grocer’s licence.

What is the criterion?

The criterion is that one must be a bona fide grocer, to begin with. That is stated very clearly in section 146 of the Act. Paragraph (a) reads as follows:

The important fact is that he must be a grocer. That must be his main function.

*It must not be a shopkeeper who just keeps a few grocery items with the actual intention of selling liquor. Proportionately, wine must occupy its proper place in that grocery store. If he meets that requirement, if he is a bona fide grocer for whom the sale of liquor is merely an adjunct matter and not the chief focus of his activities, he must apply in the manner prescribed by the Act. The Liquor Board then passes judgment on the premises, locality and all other aspects relating to the application. This is also discussed in an public hearing of the Liquor Board, where anyone has an opportunity to give evidence in public on the desirability or otherwise of the licence. A grocers’ wine licence application goes through the same channels as any other application for a liquor licence.

Mr Speaker, in other words, it will not be confined to supermarkets and hypermarkets?

No. This is not a new principle. It was accepted in 1964. Unfortunately I do not have a breakdown of the figures with me, but I am assured that at least 50% of existing licences are in the hands of the smaller entrepreneurs. As a matter of fact, I want to state it as a policy of the board that it would be very sympathetic towards the individual grocer. It is a fact that many of the grocery stores have been replaced by supermarkets, but we are very sympathetic towards the individual smaller grocer.

The hon member also referred to undesirable conditions. He created the impression that the moment one grants a licence, one will have people congregating outside the grocery store and turn it into a drinking place. The board can, however, act against any undesirable practice, and not only in theory. I receive complaints on a regular basis which I then pass on to the board. The board investigates it in the proper manner and takes the necessary steps. In its annual report which I will publish shortly, a number of these cases are reported. I am not going to quote them all but want to refer to a few of these complaints just to give the hon member an indication of the nature of the investigations and the way in which the board acts.

*In the case of the Helderberg Hotel in Somerset West, complaints were received of excessive noise in the ladies’ bar, as well as noise in front of the hotel late at night caused by visitors leaving the hotel premises. Conditions were imposed to resolve the problem.

Undesirable conditions also occurred at the Cylnor Hotel in Somerset West. This matter was deferred in order to afford the licensee an opportunity to transfer his off-sales to more suitable premises, and that was consequently done.

The licence of the Radium Hotel in Johannesburg was suspended until a report was received from the designated police officer to the effect that the hotel could once more offer accommodation of a high standard. The board investigated, in one year, 27 cases of the occurrence of an undesirable practice, and suitable steps were taken.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North also made a number of rather sweeping statements. He spoke about a club liquor licence and then asked the hon member for Vasco whether he wanted such a licence to be an international licence; in other words, whether or not it would be an open licence. However, the hon member has been a member of this House for some considerable time, and only a year or two ago we eliminated club liquor licences from the provisions of section 73. This section provides what category of persons shall be admitted to licensed premises. In other words, a club liquor licence is not relevant in that category. A club can decide for itself whom it wishes to admit. The hon member must make certain of his facts before he puts forward certain arguments here. [Interjections.]

†The hon member also suggested that the State has a vested interest in the liquor trade because the State gets a substantial income from that source. Fair enough, but does the hon member now suggest that we must not tax liquor?

No!

Why then does the hon member make the statement that the State has a vested interest and that therefore one should come to the conclusion that the State must be favourably disposed towards the number of outlets or the consumption of liquor?

Why don’t you tax whisky?

The hon member should know that it is more complicated than that. The hon member should know that it is tied by GATT. We are looking into it and it has been referred to the Board of Trade and Industries.

*The hon member for Innesdal also explained why he could not support this legislation.

You still have not replied to my question.

I do not feel like replying to a question from that hon member.

The hon member for Innesdal also referred to liquor stores that became the target for attacks in the event of riots. I want to tell the hon member, though, that there is clear evidence indicating that these liquor outlets were attacked because they were seen as symbols of the Administration Boards and therefore of the authorities, and that is one of the reasons why we want to privatize liquor in Black areas by getting the trade into the hands of individual Black entrepreneurs so that they can also develop as businessmen. We have made a good deal of progress with this. All the Administration Boards have already taken the necessary steps to divest themselves of their liquor interests. There are still a few problems that have to be cleared up. One of them is the availability of capital to many Black entrepreneurs. What we really want to avoid is the development of Black monopolies. We really do want to make it possible for Black entrepreneurs to take over the liquor industry in their own areas, and to do so in a responsible and orderly manner. We also want to prevent Black entrepreneurs from merely being a front for White capital. For that reason matters are perhaps not developing as rapidly as we would like to see. However we are continuing to work on this.

Mr Speaker, I shall have to make haste. I did still want to refer to the hon member for Greytown, but he said so many silly things that I think I should rather leave it at that. I must, however, refute a certain allegation the hon member for Green Point made. That hon member said that nothing was done after the inquiry in connection with Green Point and Sea Point. That is not true; it is simply not true, Mr Speaker. I can point out to the hon member at least two matters that subsequently received attention; one of them from my own department. We negotiated with all the liquor dealers in that area, and entered into specific agreements with them on the question of the category of people to whom liquor may be sold. That is only one aspect of the matter. Similarly, the Department of Law and Order will investigate certain aspects. The fact of the matter was once again that the investigation, which was instituted into the unsatisfactory conditions in those areas, proved indisputably that it was not the availability of liquor that was at the root of the problem.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I just want …

When are you going to reply to that question of mine?

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to reply to the hon member for Langlaagte’s question now?

Mr Speaker, I do not really want to, but I shall simply have to allow the hon member to put his question. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister made the statement that there would be no increase in the number of outlets at which liquor was sold under grocers’ wine licences. The number of grocers’ wine licences was fixed by the Government at 36. At present Pick ’n Pay already has its full quota of 36 licences. OK Bazaars already has 12 licences, and the other supermarket group in question has 28 licences. Consequently approximately 32 licences are now to be added in terms of the measure under discussion. Is this not allowing for the freer availability of liquor? Moreover, is this not a deviation from the existing statutory provision in terms of which vertical integration is prevented?

Mr Speaker, I referred a moment ago to the hon member for Green Point. What I said then applies equally to the question the hon member for Langlaagte has just put. The increase in the number of licences is not affected by the provision in clause 1 of the Bill. The argument the hon member advanced, namely that it would lead to a greater and freer availability of liquor, naturally because an amendment is being effected in regard to the availability of champagne too, does not address the matter at all. However, I concede the point to the hon member for Langlaagte. In that respect it is being made possible for those two groups to increase their number of outlets. This can happen after application and after approval. It is a valid argument, and I therefore concede that the hon member, from that point of view, is correct.

Order! Before I suspend business, there is one aspect I should like to clarify with a view to the record. The use of the world “afraid” in this House is not per se inadmissible. However, when it is linked to an hon member, it may be inadmissible. The hon member for Langlaagte said earlier that the hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism was afraid to reply to a question. That was a reflection on the hon the Minister and I request the hon member to withdraw that allegation.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, I think that all hon members have now been afforded an ample opportunity to state their views and I do not wish to take up any more of the time of this House in replying to them, because I hope that I did that adequately this morning.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Speaker, I move:

Now that the representatives of the people have had the opportunity of discussing with great wisdom the merits and demerits of grocers’ wine licences, the time has come, in the light of the important role played by the judiciary in our national life, to reflect on the need for judges of the Supreme Court of South Africa to receive the remuneration which will be in keeping with the status of this office and with the great complexities which can sometimes arise from the implementation or non-implementation of the Liquor Act.

The salary increases for judges which are being proposed in the Bill with effect from 1 January 1984 are in line with salary increases which have been granted to other functionaries in the public sector from the same date. I may add that the salaries of our judges were last adjusted in 1982.

†On behalf of the Government I would like to express my appreciation for the excellent work done by judges of the Supreme Court of South Africa and for their valuable contribution to the maintenance of peace and order and of justice in society. Our judiciary is held in high esteem, locally and abroad, and there can be no doubt about the integrity and impartiality of our judges. In fact, they have built up an impressive record in this regard, of which all South Africans can justly be proud.

Mr Speaker, the Bill need not delay the House unduly. A country is often, and I think correctly so, judged by the quality of justice which it dispenses. In this regard I am in accord with the hon the Minister in that South Africa has no need to hide its light under a bushel. The South African High Court enjoys an enviable reputation in Africa and in truth world-wide. Our Bench is no lackey of the Government, nor is it the slave of rigid laws. It has a record of independence and impartiality of which any civilized country would be justly proud. We need only to look at some recent decisions and judgments on issues of a controversial nature to reassure ourselves that the judiciary is not the servant of the Cabinet, but rather the third and quite separate arm of Government distinct from both the Executive and the Legislature. Laws are not made only in Parliament, for through intellectual and reasonable interpretation statutes are given firm meaning by this small college of judges in our society. It is to judges that society looks, for example, to bestow upon laws a human face. Very often it is the judiciary upon whose broad shoulders must rest the task of protecting the individual against the injustices of harsh legislation and against the insensitive administrative actions of the Executive. But in order to maintain and to promote the highest quality of justice dispensed, it is essential that the jurists of our country, who occupy our Bench, are of the highest standard. I ask myself what makes a good judge? Many learned tomes have been written about this conundrum, but allow me, somewhat gingerly, to enter this field of conjecture.

Firstly, I believe that a good judge is made by education and study. Secondly, more than a few years of successful practice of law, as the defender of the private citizen. Thirdly, an understanding of the society which one serves. Fourthly, an appreciation of the morals and values of life and of acceptable standards of behaviour. Fifthly, a sense of independence, divorced from personal emotions or ambition. Finally, a keen intellect and concomitant with that, an absence of cynicism and a presence of a sense of humour.

If we in our country aspire to judicial excellence, if we place a lofty value on the quality of justice available to the ordinary citizen, we cannot expect to attain those heights without cost to the Exchequer. The best people do not come cheaply. A senior and competent advocate, practising in any one of the several Bars of South Africa, earns something in excess of R100 000 per annum, and very many of them in excess of R200 000 per annum. If we understand that judges too are human, that they also have wives to maintain and children to educate, homes to keep up and long hours to work, we would be unreasonable to expect a successful advocate, in the prime of his career, to divide his annual income not by half, but sometimes by three or four times in order to occupy a seat on the Bench. Prestige and position are one thing, but a catastrophically dramatic drop in a standard of living is another. No wonder the hon the Minister of Justice has in past years found it no easy task to fill vacancies, let alone to extend the establishment of the Bench in keeping with our growing population. Yet, it bears testimony to the excellence of the profession that in past weeks we have witnessed such mature appointments as those of Advocates Kriegler, Van Niekerk and Schabort from the Witwatersrand Bar and Advocates Wilson and Van Rensburg from the Natal Bar. I think the hon the Minister must be congratulated on those elevations. However, I want to level a word of warning. A good tradition, one tested in time, should not be side-stepped, no matter what the difficulties. I know that the hon the Minister knows what I am talking about. He should avoid at all costs the temptation of appointing judges, even in an acting capacity, from the immediate ranks of the Executive. Such appointments can only bring into question that crucial independence of which I have spoken.

There are three further aspects upon which I would like to touch. The first relates to the scope of the increases proposed in this Bill. At first glance they appear to be large, ranging as they do between 31% and 43%. However, there are certain factors which one should bear in mine. For instance, no increases were accorded in 1983. Further, the 1981 and 1982 increases were modest and barely kept pace with the then inflation rate. In order to attract top people to this vital third and intrinsic tier of government, South Africa must be prepared to pay for this privilege. We therefore support the increases mentioned in this Bill.

The second aspect which I would like to mention, relates to taxation. Once advocates ascend the Bench, they divorce themselves entirely from commercial activity. Gone are the company cars, the perks of directorships, etc. To increase a salary is not be be sneezed at, but it is the take home pay that counts. Parliamentarians, for the moment at least, as do company directors, enjoy several side-benefits not calculated for purposes of tax. It is high time that a comprehensive package, one which is tax efficient, be designed in consultation with and for judges. Until this task is properly tackled, I believe the everlasting problem will persist.

There is one last aspect which I would like to mention. Whatever takes place in the future, there is one point to remember, namely that the executive is the servant and representative of the legislature which in turn represents the people. While judges—thank heavens—are not elected, they are appointed by those who are in fact the executive and who represent this legislature. It must remain the right of the legislature to determine the terms of office and the emoluments of this branch of government. We are against sweeping these tasks under a mat. They must remain public knowledge.

With these words, I want to inform the hon the Minister that we will be supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I wish to thank the hon member for Sandton, for expressing the support of the official Opposition for this measure. I find myself in complete agreement with the hon member for Sandton’s words of high praise for the judiciary.

*I am grateful for the fact that we have again succeeded today in keeping the Bench out of the political area. It would be an evil day if the salaries of judges ever became a political football in this House. I hope that this attitude will continue to prevail, for if there is one thing we need in this country, then it is greater respect for those who are charged with the administration of justice and who all have to bear a great responsibility in this country. It is a negative phenomenon in society today that too little appreciation and too little respect is shown for people in positions of authority. Therefore I welcome the fact that we are able to discuss this measure with such unanimity today.

The salaries of judges were last increased with effect from 1 April 1982. Since that date, inflation in this country has gone up by 21,2%. In the light of this inflation rate, that the increase proposed in this measure is not at all excessive. On the contrary, this increase is essential to compensate our judges for the depreciation of money as a result of inflation and to bring their salaries into line with the salaries of senior public servants and the income of advocates from whose ranks the judges are appointed.

Like the hon member for Sandton, I believe that the salaries of our judges should be sufficient to make them independent of other sources of income. This promotes the independence and impartiality of our Bench. I also believe that the proposed increase of salaries is a suitable recognition of the outstanding work done by our judges. The hon member for Sandton referred to the fact—I agree with him wholeheartedly—that the standard of the South African administration of justice is among the highest in the world. Another factor which we must not lose sight of in this connection is the fact that the burden of work of our judges is constantly increasing. It is clear from the Galgut report and from the remarks made by Mr Justice Coetzee in Standard Bank v Shiba 1984 (1) SAHV 153 et seq. how the burden of work of our judges has increased in recent years and is still increasing. In spite of this heavy burden of work, they still manage to perform their task with distinction. I believe that the proposed increase is a suitable recognition of the work they are doing in this connection.

On this side of the House we take great pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr Speaker, the CP also takes great pleasure in supporting the legislation which is before us. We regard it as an essential and desirable adjustment as far as the salaries of our judges are concerned. We fully endorse the hon the Minister’s appreciative remarks about the dedication with which the Bench in South Africa performs its task. Our Bench is known all over the world for its distinguished and very independent character, which is due in particular to the dedicated service which our judges have rendered over the years. Our judges are also held in very high esteem by all sectors of our population all over the country.

Immediately after this measure, we shall be considering a statutory amendment with regard to the admission of advocates, from which it is also clear that the Department of Justice places particular emphasis on the maintenance of a high standard for the admission of advocates to the Bench. As you know, Sir, our able judges are appointed to the Bench from the ranks of our advocates. This is another reason why it is so essential that the legal training of our advocates should be of a very high quality. Then we know that with their years of experience, our judges will rise to the heights of which we are very proud in South Africa. For these reasons, we wholeheartedly support the legislation which is before us.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member Mr Theunissen for his support of the legislation. I also endorse the remarks he made in this connection.

With this measure, one of the most important pillars in our constitution is not only confirmed, but strengthened. I am referring to the independence of the Bench. It is a fact that adequate remuneration of judges and security of tenure of judges are internationally accepted as one of the standards by which the independence of a country’s Bench can be measured. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the April 1983 edition of International Bar News under the heading “Toward an International Code of Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence: History and Outline of the Jerusalem Approved Standards”. The article was written by Shimon Shetreet of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He writes, among other things:

He goes on to quote some other examples. Judges’ salaries are an important factor in maintaining the independence of the Bench.

I also want to refer to some of the minimum standards set by the International Bar Association. They are the following:

1. 1.
   1. (a) Individual judges should enjoy personal independence and substantive independence.
   2. (b) Personal independence means that

I also quote points 14 and 15:

1. 14. Judicial salaries and pensions shall be adequate and should be regularly adjusted to account for price increases independent of executive control.
2. 15. (a) The position of the judges, their independence, their security, and their adequate remuneration shall be secured by law.

I do not think there can be any doubt about the fact that we comply with these standards in South Africa. The measure which is under discussion at the moment also complies with these standards.

I cannot omit to thank the hon the Minister and to give him full credit for having considerably improved the dispensation for judges within a very short period, not only as far as their direct benefits are concerned, but also with regard to the indirect fringe benefits. I believe that the entire country owes him a debt of gratitude for that.

It is only fair that when the State imposes restrictions on the income of judges, as it does in terms of the Supreme Court Act, the Government should ensure, on the other hand, that the judges are properly remunerated. The benefits offered by this legislation are the least the country can pay to ensure that we have good administration of justice and an independent Bench. Therefore I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member Mr Schutte. I fully agree with the point which he made. Generally speaking, the points made by the hon member for Sandton are absolutely correct.

†I think the hon member made an extremely eloquent and very balanced and valuable contribution to what has become traditionally a very short debate about this very important matter. We on these benches will support the legislation. All the remarks that have been made centre around the fact that judges should be kept well above any possible criticism, by allowing them to do a very sound and restful job without any form of pressures or likely executive interference. I think that is a vital aspect which one always has to bear in mind as far as our judges are concerned. Not many years ago the question of executive judges was raised. It will be a sorry day if that should come to pass and we should ensure it is never repeated. Any suggestion that judges owe allegiance to the executive should be avoided like the plague. Their ability to function in a society which has such swiftly changing standards must also be borne in mind. It is really quite marked and almost paradoxical when one thinks that whereas the public at large very often questions the validity of certain statutes or legal provisions—and I think sometimes with a fair amount of justification— they never question a judge’s interpretation of a statute. In our society judges are seen as the wise men who in fact have the ability to see past human frailties, to judge fairly and honestly despite all the exigencies of a situation and it is that image and that function which we must cosset and nurture at all costs. We therefore also have pleasure in supporting this amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon member for King William’s Town for his positive remarks and also for his support of the legislation, although there may be some difference of opinion with regard to his statements about the executive authority.

I also take pleasure in supporting the Bill, for several reasons. Firstly, it is our task and duty as legislators to ensure that the judicial function of government is the best in the world, and this is the way it should be, because the legal system is the foundation, the basis of every State. If a State has a good legal system, that State will prosper and all its subjects will have more legal certainty and more confidence in the law.

In the second place, there is another and more fundamental principle. The authority of the state is divided among three institutions, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, and the judiciary must be fully independent. This principle should be universally applicable in every country in the world. A high premium should be placed on the independence of the judiciary. After all, this is one of the cornerstones of freedom.

In the third place, we know that the function of our judges is indispensable in the legal process. With their administration of justice, they uphold and develop our legal system. They are at the pinnacle of our legal system; they develop and expand it. They jealously guard the freedom of the individual and the freedom of institutions not related to the state, and they ensure that freedom is upheld in all spheres of life.

To my deep regret I must admit that one sometimes hears the criticism that judges earn too much. However, these critics forget—and I say this with reference to the remarks of the hon member for Sandton—that a senior advocate earns much more in his practice and that advocates sometimes refuse to accept an appointment to the Bench because it would mean a great financial loss to them. In this way, we lose potential good judges. The critics also forget that nothing prevents them from earning such a good income themselves. Nothing prevents them from obtaining an LLB degree themselves, from practising for many years and eventually qualifying, through hard work, to be appointed as judges. There is no more hardworking profession in this country than that of the judges. They work long hours, and they even work over weekends. This is one of the professions which make tremendous demands on people as far as their personal and intellectual abilities are concerned. I have been closely associated with judges and advocates while working as a judge’s clerk. I worked as clerk to Mr Justice Potgieter. In the three years and six months I worked there, I saw the great stress under which a judge and an advocate work and the great responsibility with which they perform their duties. This is a demanding profession.

Judges literally work day and night. They have almost no free time. They also lead a lonely life, for when a person becomes a judge, he does not keep his former friends, mainly because people feel that he should be independent in his private life as well.

For these reasons, I believe, the profession of a judge is not one which all people would like to practice. Nevertheless, we have great respect for that profession. We regard the judge as the symbol of justice. Consequently I also wish to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank hon members who have pledged their support for this Bill with such responsibility. I believe that the sense of responsibility of hon members of this House has been even more evident today than it normally is. It has characterized their well-prepared and elegant, short and persuasive speeches, which the people on the Bench should find highly gratifying, I believe. They should be gratified by the fact that the legislature, which is responsible for determining their remuneration, is doing this with so much appreciation and with the greatest possible respect. It is right and proper that this message should be conveyed to them from this House.

The hon member for Sandton referred in his speech to a number of appointments that had recently been made. I want to point out that the hon member may not have noticed the announcement concerning one particular advocate in the newspapers. Therefore I should like to add the name of that advocate to the list of names which the hon member gave us. It is the name of Advocate Leveson of the Johannesburg Bar, who has been appointed to the Transvaal Bench with effect from 1 April.

I have not noticed his name in the Press.

Mr Speaker, I take it that the hon member for Sandton is not always able to read all the newspapers. I say this in a friendly spirit. For the sake of completeness, however, I am just adding the name of Advocate Leveson to the list.

The arguments advanced by the hon member were interesting. He advanced three very valid arguments. Among other things, he referred to the fact that salaries should be made substantial enough to attract advocates to the Bench. Many advocates have a large income, and a large income is in fact a sign of ability. It is for this very reason that the legislature is doing justice to these highly paid and able professional people today, but conceding that we cannot compensate them according to their true worth. Nor can we offer them salaries which would even approach what they are able to earn in the private sector. What we can tell them, however, is that when they accept an appointment to the Bench, we are anxious to pay them salaries which place them in the most highly remunerated categories of our State structure. This is in fact what we are saying in terms of this measure. It has a truly symbolic value, therefore.

Furthermore, I also want to refer to the third interim report of the Hoexter Commission, which was indeed responsible for the fact that we have to a certain extent made further adjustments to the salary structure. On page 31 of the report, mention is made of the ratio of judges to advocates in the Transvaal. It is 1:13, compared with the ratio of 1:5 in the rest of the country. Perhaps the final Hoexter report will deal with this matter again, but the fact remains that visitors who are well qualified to express an opinion on this sometimes regard it as an unfavourable ratio. They say that we have too small a number of advocates to supply the number of judges that we consider necessary on the Bench. Having made that point, I must also say that it is Government policy that the advocates are the primary source from which our judges must be drawn. Indeed, the advocates have always regarded it as their duty to make a contribution to the Bench, and they have sometimes accepted appointments to the Bench even to their financial detriment.

I want to express two ideas in this connection. In the first place, we shall have to produce more lawyers, in relation to the numbers of our population, who will be able to gain the necessary experience through legal practice to enable them eventually to be called to our Bench. This is an indisputable fact.

In the second place, I think it is appropriate to make the point that if the advocates remain the primary source, we must also ask for understanding on the part of those who are sometimes critical of the appointment of people from other sources. I am not making any statement of policy. I am simply presenting the House with accomplished and true facts. There is no change in Government policy in this respect, namely that the ranks of the advocates should be regarded as the primary source from which our judges are drawn.

I also want to say the following in a lighter vein.

†The hon member for King William’s Town referred to certain appointees in the past as being executive judges. I must confess, Sir, that I have not as yet come across that phenomenon. The hon member for Bloemfontein East who, in his younger days, was not nearly as grey as he is now, would not be referred to as a judicial or juristic member of Parliament. As a matter of fact, once an appointment is made to the Bench, as has been proved time and again in the past, such appointee divorces himself immediately from his background. In actual fact, this is something that is even quite visible when a member of the Bar is appointed to the Bench. Those of us who have had experience of appearing in court know that a judge can become very stern towards his erstwhile colleagues.

*Although this was said in a lighter vein, I do want to point out that it is an interesting point which we had to make.

The hon members Mr Schutte and Mr Theunissen also made valuable contributions for which I want to thank them, and I think it would be appropriate at this stage to make one final point for hon members to ponder.

We have had an informative, brief and vigorous debate on this measure. The question is whether we should have such a debate on a matter on which we are all in agreement and which concerns the salaries of judges. I could have given the hon member a further reply by pointing out to him the considerable percentage increases granted in 1979, 1980 and 1981, which could have served to explain why there was no increase in 1983, but I do not think it would have been appropriate.

The question is, therefore, whether we need such a debate. Should we not start thinking along the lines of a procedure comparable to the one which is followed in the case of the salary of the State President and the Vice State President? In that case, this House has an opportunity to debate salary increases if it disagrees, or even if it does not disagree, arising from a motion moved in this connection by the Leader of the House. The question arises whether there are not sufficient grounds for such a procedure in the case of salaries of judges. On the other hand, this very important third pillar of our State structure, in addition to the executive and the legislative authorities, should be seen to be independent, and its salary should be seen to be determined, not by the executive authority, but by the legislature. That is the argument which I can advance against my own case. I raise the matter in a friendly atmosphere, and the hon members may reflect on it in the days to come.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Owing to the devaluation of money over the last few years and the fact that the civil jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts has not been adjusted accordingly since 1974, the Supreme Court is at present being burdened with civil actions which used to be adjudicated by magistrates’ courts. The hearing of civil actions in the Supreme Court merely because the jurisdiction of the inferior courts has been forced down to an unrealistically low level by inflation is placing an unnecessary cost burden on the litigant. Apart from the higher scales of costs applicable in the Supreme Court, the cost of briefing an advocate, of the receipt and reading of briefs by an advocate and of consultations between advocate and attorney is quite unnecessarily being borne by litigants who are being forced to the Supreme Court by this state of affairs. In addition, it is placing a considerable and an unnecessary burden on the Supreme Court, while detracting from the high status of that court as the judicial authority of the country. In a recent Supreme Court judgment, the court criticized the fact that the Supreme Court was dealing with actions which did not deserve the attention of this court and which could be adjudicated in magistrates’ courts at a lower cost, which would be to the advantage of litigants. In Standard Bank of South Africa v Shiba 1984 (1) SA 153 (W), Mr Justice Coetzee said the following:

†At present the civil jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts in respect of causes of action is limited to R1 500 and R3 000 in illiquid and liquid claims respectively. In an action in which is claimed the delivery or transfer of any movable or immovable property or where for example the claim or the value of the matter or property is in dispute, the jurisdiction is limited to R1 500, and in an action on or arising out of any credit agreement as defined in section 1 of the Credit Agreements Act, 1980, it is limited to R3 000. Having regard only to the devaluation of money since 1974, the jurisdictional limits of R1 500 and R3 000 should today be approximately R5 000 and R10 000 respectively. A cursory overview of Supreme Court cases reported recently, leads to the conclusion that the Supreme Court is frequently called upon to hear matters in which less than R10 000 or even R5 000 is claimed. As the judgment of Mr Justice Coetzee, referred to above, is wholly in point, I shall refer to the statistics therein. It appears that out of 132 applications heard by the learned judge on one day, only 23, less than 18%, were in respect of amounts in excess of R10 000, while 86, or 68%, were in respect of amounts of less than R5 000. Mr Justice Coetzee also points out that approximately 70% of the trials in the Witwatersrand Local Division are cases where the value of the matter in dispute does not exceed R10 000. He estimates that four to five judges of that division are required to do “magistrates’ work”.

Due to the nature and extent of the recommendations included in the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Structure and Functioning of the Courts, which, inter alia, deal with this matter, the consideration thereof will take up some time. However, alleviation of the burden on the Supreme Court is urgent. As an interim measure an increase in the civil jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts to R5 000 and R10 000 in illiquid and liquid claims respectively, is therefore proposed in clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. The increase is in fact merely an adaption of the existing jurisdiction to bring it in line with the devaluation of money. Moreover, this measure is in line with the recommendations of the Galgut Commission.

Mr Speaker, the increase in civil jurisdiction afforded to magistrates’ courts as proposed in this Bill would be justified even if there had been no Galgut report. Inflation alone over the past few years would easily account for the increases which are included in this Bill. However, we should see this Bill against the background of the several ongoing investigations into the procedures and the structure of our courts, which are now slowly bearing fruit, the last of which I hope will be on our desks very soon. I refer of course to the Rumpff report, the Galgut report and the several Hoexter reports, as well as the several ongoing investigations being conducted by the Department of Justice itself. All these have played a role. Within a few days I believe we are going to have on our desk the Hoexter report, in both languages, and a more comprehensive picture will then emerge. The courts of South Africa, slowly, gingerly, but ever so surely, are undergoing considerable reform. These changes will hopefully bring justice closer to the ordinary man, will curb, we hope, the devastating escalation of legal costs, and will cut down on serious delays which hinder the adjudication of problems and disputes. Delayed justice is in fact no justice at all.

The contents of the Bill represents just one of those small steps, and I think it would be correct of me to say that the hon the Minister should be complimented on his support for this modernizing process.

I could occupy the House’s time in analysing the proposed increases in civil jurisdiction, whether they relate to property transactions, mortgage bonds, liquid documents or undefined disputes, but I will spare the House this pain. Suffice to say that the PFP, ever attuned to both the needs of the profession and the public, supports the measure in its entirety. Furthermore, we see it as but a part of an overall and developing strategy to improve the quality of justice available to everyone in society. The answer therefore is “yes”; this Bill should proceed without hindrance. We await the next instalment with anticipation.

Mr Speaker, it again gives me great pleasure to thank the hon member for Sandton and the official Opposition for their support of this measure.

*The hon the Minister and the hon member for Sandton rightly pointed out that the proposed increasing of the civil jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts has become absolutely essential owing to the depreciation in the value of money as a result of inflation during the past few years. As has already been mentioned, this fact is emphasized by the Galgut Report from which I want to quote a single extract. The following appears on page 20:

The report goes on to say:

Mr Justice Coetzee in the already quoted case of Standard Bank of South Africa v Shiba (1984 (1) SA) says inter alia the following in his judgement:

He goes on to say the following in his judgement:

This adequately emphasized the necessity and justification for increasing the civil jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts.

The measure we are at present considering, should also be seen as an interim measure until such time as the recommendations of the Hoexter Commission can be implemented. I believe that the proposals of the Hoexter Commission will be rather far-reaching and that it will take some time before it will be possible to implement them in practice. Until such time as this happens, it is quite essential that suitable interim measures be adopted to prevent what Mr Justice Coetzee referred to in the above-quoted judgement, namely that if something drastic was not done, the machinery of justice was in danger of grinding to a halt. In order to prevent this from happening it is essential to introduce an interim measure to increase the civil jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts in order to relieve the pressure on the superior courts.

We on this side of the House therefore take pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr Speaker, we on this side associate ourselves with our hon colleagues who have already indicated that they support the proposed increasing of the civil jurisdiction of our magistrates’ courts. We want to state that in our opinion this is essential and this adjustment should have been made long ago. We also want to thank the hon the Minister for making part of Mr Justice Galgut’s report available to us. In it we found the motivation of the judge’s standpoints. We agree with them. Mr Justice Galgut placed emphasis on two matters in particular, and I think his approach was quite reasonable and practical. On the one hand this step arises from the fact that we should like to bring down litigation costs in this way and, on the other, that we also want to reduce the workload of our judiciary. By reducing the workload we shall by implication also speed up the administration of justice in our magistrates’ courts, particularly as regards certain actions. This will undoubtedly result in shorter delays in the hearing of certain actions and in their being disposed of more rapidly.

As far as the costs of litigation are concerned, I should like to state that litigation costs in the Supreme Courts are considerably higher than those in our magistrates’ courts. I do not want to elaborate on this. One need only refer to the advocates’ fees in comparison with the attorneys’ fees in actions pertaining to a specific legal jurisdiction. Let me hasten to add that this will not necessarily mean that in practice we shall make less use of specifically our junior advocates. In the urban areas in particular most legal practitioners use their services to a great extent, frequently at an amount agreed upon which need not necessarily be an excessively high amount. Litigation costs will therefore definitely be reduced and we shall undoubtedly still make a great deal of use of our advocates to assist us in this connection. When one considers litigation costs, particularly in the rural areas, in regard to the increasing of the civil jurisdiction, one has to bear in mind that in practice, for example in a case where a claim exceeds R1 500, one has to undertake to travel from Vrede to Bloemfontein so that the case can be heard there. All this leads to considerable costs, inconvenience, etc. In this regard this step can also afford considerable relief.

Some of our colleagues referred to the remarks of Mr Justice Galgut. If you will allow me, Sir, I should like to refer to a facet which the judge touched upon. He said inter alia:

In passing I want to say that I think the Standard Bank case has been referred to quite sufficiently now. I also wanted to say something about it. However, I shall content myself by saying that the following remark by Mr Justice Coetzee was interesting: “Its 1939 jurisdiction should simply be restored to the magistrate’s court in real terms.” He summed things up very well, also with regard to the actual value of money nowadays, which means we are doing the right thing today in effecting an upward adjustment to the jurisdiction.

I have already quoted from what Mr Justice Galgut said in his report. What he said there was fairly serious. I ask myself whether the judge was entirely fair to our magistrates as regards their practical experience.

Are you referring to Mr Justice Galgut?

Yes. I am sorry that I anticipated things a little by quoting from his report first and then referring to the remarks by Mr Justice Coetzee. However, I wanted to present the remark by Mr Justice Coetzee to this House.

I should like to examine the remark by Mr Justice Galgut more closely, bearing in mind the greatest degree of respect one should have for our judges. I am referring to his remark with regard to our magistrates. I have every confidence in the juristic ability of our magistrates throughout the country. It is a fact that during the past few decades there has been a considerable improvement in the level of training of our magistrates. Since their days as prosecutors there has been consistent improvement in the level of their training. This applies not only to our magistrates, but also to all divisions of the Department of Justice. One has to make mention of the improvement in training which has taken place. I believe that our young magistrates— this is the point I should like to emphasize— are quite capable of assuming responsibility for the increased civil jurisdiction they are now going to have to deal with. This is very important, because the juristic ability of magistrates is not only going to be measured against the amount which is at issue, whether it be R500, R3 000 or R5 000. The training of our magistrates nowadays is of such a nature that it inspires complete confidence. In that respect I disagree with the remark made by Mr Justice Galgut in his report. I believe we can confidently expect the administration of justice in our courts to be of a high standard in future.

We are very glad—we have already mentioned the reasons for this—for the fact that the civil jurisdiction of our magistrates’ courts is being increased. We know that it will be further increased in future. As a matter of fact, I have asked myself why the hon the Minister has not increased the jurisdiction to R15 000 instead of R10 000 in some cases. Here one need only think of mortgages. What is the value of money nowadays? I believe an amount of R15 000 would not make much difference.

Then one could take someone to court in connection with the hire-purchase transaction on his Mercedes Benz.

Yes. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we on this side fully support this amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member Mr Theunissen and his party for their support of this amending Bill. In the course of his speech, the hon member mentioned the cost aspect, which I believe has indeed developed into a crucial problem in our administration of justice, especially with regard to smaller claims, because it may lead to uneconomic litigation and may in some cases even serve as a deterrent.

Our judicial process is undergoing a particularly interesting process of development which is aimed at ensuring that the administration of justice will be made more accessible to all, without expense playing a decisive role. The purpose of the amending Bill is in fact to help resolve this problem, and the proposed adjustments to the civil jurisdictional limit of the magistrate should be seen against the background of the court structure as a whole, as well as in the light of the proposed courts for small claims, in respect of which legislation has already been introduced in this House.

The inferior courts, ie the magistrate’s court, the commissioner’s court and indeed the proposed courts for small claims, are courts that have been created by law, the so-called creatures of statute. Unlike the Supreme Court, which has inherent jurisdiction and may therefore hear any matter except those that have specifically been excluded by law, the magistrate’s courts may only deal with those matters that have specifically been provided for in legislation. Therefore it is essential, in the light of the changing value of money, to ensure by means of legislation that the restriction imposed on the jurisdiction of this court in respect of the monetary value of a claim is adjusted to ensure that all cases for which this particular inferior court was instituted will still be able to come before that court.

Our magistrate’s court has a very interesting and colourful history in this field. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to deal with it in full, but it is interesting to note that in the court of one Johannes Mulder— he was the first magistrate at the Cape in 1685—in which he sat with four members of the heemraad, the maximum amount in dispute was 50 rix-dollars or approximately R20. This jurisdiction was systematically extended and the judicial aspect of the magistrate’s office was expanded. Under British rule in particular, the development was accelerated, and at the time of Union, although there were certain structural differences between the four provinces, the limit of the magistrate’s court was basically £100 for general cases and £200 for cases arising out of liquid documents. A consolidation Act was passed in 1917 and the general civil jurisdictional limit was put at £200. The present Act was passed in 1944, and at that time the provision with regard to jurisdiction was £200 for general cases and £500 for cases arising out of liquid documents. In 1963, these amounts were changed to R1 000 and R2 000 respectively, while provision was also made for hire purchase contracts where the limit was R2 000. The latest adjustment, as has been said, was in 1974, when this limit was increased to R1 500 for general cases and R3 000 for cases arising out of liquid documents and hire purchase contracts.

The object of this legislation is to increase this limit to R5 000 and R10 000 respectively. In the light of inflation, the resultant price increase and the devaluation of money, these amendments certainly do not represent any increase in the magistrate’s civil jurisdiction in real terms, but in fact only serve to restore his jurisdiction—and only partially at that—to what it originally was in practice.

The magistrate’s court plays a very important role in our administration of justice. At present, approximately 400 000 civil cases are heard, while approximately 3 million process documents are handled every year. It is estimated that more than 90% of the administration of justice, ie both civil and criminal, is dealt with in the magistrate’s court. In spite of this, and also as a result of limited jurisdiction, the further erosion of this limit in real terms by the depreciation of money—which leads to a rise in the cost of litigation, of course—and the conduct of certain financial institutions which, in order to centralize their debt collecting practices, prefer to bring an action in the Supreme Court rather in the magistrate’s court, legal proceedings are increasingly being instituted in the Supreme Court. This spate of cases has caused several problems for the Supreme Court, the most of important being, of course, a time problem, congested court rolls, and the enormous delays before civil actions are disposed of. The most important problem arising from this has already been indicated. It is the additional expense, which is sometimes out of all proportion to the value of the claim involved.

Something else which is very worrying is the possibility that this situation may force the Supreme Court to spend precious time on cases which it should not really be hearing at all, such as cases in connection with debt collecting. In this way, the Supreme Court could be prevented from concentrating on its primary function, the adjudication of serious disputes and the general supervision of our administration of justice. In the recent case of Standard Bank of South Africa v Shiba and Standard Bank of South Africa v Van der Berg, a case to which the hon the Minister has also referred, the court specifically pointed out these problems. The court also pointed out that in order to restore the jurisdiction to the level at which it had been in the magistrate’s court in practice, the limit would have to be increased to approximately R15 000. Furthermore, the court expressed the opinion—which I believe reflects the attitude of the Bench—that urgent attention should be given to alleviating the situation, for example, by means of a proper increase in the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court, and also by introducing a procedure in terms of which it will be possible, when summons have initially been issued in the Supreme Court, while it appears that the matter is purely one of debt collecting, to transfer the case to the magistrate’s court, which has a specialized debt collecting procedure available to it. I wish to add my voice to those who support this plea.

It has already been pointed out that both our superior and our inferior courts have built up a particularly proud tradition of independence, impartiality and justice, a tradition which commands world-wide respect and which is not attacked even by our fiercest critics. Everything possible must be done to ensure that the functioning of our courts is not compromised as a result of increased pressure of work. I realize that the report of the Hoexter Commission of Inquiry with regard to the magistrate’s courts is under consideration at the moment, and I have no doubt that urgent attention has been given to this situation in the report of this commission, which has already done so much valuable work, and that the commission has also made some well-considered recommendations in this connection. Therefore I want to suggest that we should take this opportunity of adjusting the position in its entirety in order to ensure that the courts will be able to maintain the extremely high standard of work which they have at the moment.

I want to conclude by voicing a few thoughts concerning the magistrates’ courts in this connection. At the moment, a magistrate’s duties include much more than just his judicial function. He must also perform several administrative functions in his capacity as representative of the State. I believe that the structure should be modified so as to enable a magistrate to devote more time to his judicial function, which is after all his primary task. Several of these more administrative functions could appropriately be transferred to other State Departments. Where it is not possible for every State Department to have his own representative, especially in the rural areas, this could perhaps be dealt with by way of a separate division within the Department of Justice. However, it should be completely divorced from the judicial division.

The civil jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court should be increased to a realistic level, such as R15 000. In addition, a system similar to that of the regional and district court system, which already applies with regard to criminal cases, should be introduced with regard to civil cases as well. As the House knows, the civil regional magistrates also has civil jurisdiction in terms of section 9(1)(c) read with section 12(5) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, but his jurisdiction is the same as that of the existing magistrate’s court. With the introduction of such a civil regional court, this court should then be given increased jurisdiction.

Civil administration of justice is a specialized area, just like criminal administration of justice, and it is essential that the department should retain the services of its experts in this sphere. The introduction of civil regional courts of this nature would result in the creation of posts to which people in this division could be promoted, and this would mean that officials who may be more interested in civil law, but who at the moment are being forced to enter the criminal division in order to further their careers, will be enabled to concentrate on civil law. The functions of other courts should be systematically transferred and phased into such a magistrate’s court structure, so that in this way, a uniform structure, consisting of the Supreme Court, magistrate’s court and courts for small claims, can eventually be created for the hearing of all criminal and civil cases; and so that the administration of justice may be brought within the reach of all, irrespective of their financial position.

I have no doubt that our magistrates are very well qualified to handle such increased jurisdiction and functions with all the skill and dignity with which they perform their work at present. Therefore we take pleasure in supporting this amending Bill and we are grateful for the fact that it is only an interim measure.

Mr Speaker, this is a very good amendment and the NRP will support it. I think the crux of the whole matter was adequately summed up in the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister in which he told us that Mr Justice Coetzee had indicated that 68% of the cases heard by the Witwatersrand Local Division were in respect of amounts below R5 000, and that in fact four to five judges of that division were required to do magistrates’ work. I think that that says it all. The fact that this situation has crept up on these court brings to mind the fact that one will have to review the position on a more frequent basis. Quite obviously the situation has been allowed to continue for such a space of time that the magistrates’ ability to handle such cases has now become subject to some doubt.

The hon member Mr Theunissen referred to the Galgut Report but I should just like to tell the hon member that it was not Mr Justice Galgut himself who made the remark. Judges, advocates and especially attorneys were of the opinion that magistrates were not in a position to handle these cases. However, on the following page of the report it is stated:

Therefore, quite obviously the situation has developed where they have been phased out of doing this sort of work because they have not been able to gain the necessary experience. This could, of course, happen again if the situation is not monitored frequently so as to ensure that they will be doing ongoing civil work.

We have much pleasure in supporting this amendment, Sir, because it is one of two amendments that are most important and which will in fact bring civil justice much closer to the man in the street with less delay. However, if the volume of the work is such as was indicated by Mr Justice Coetzee, one wonders to what extent the magistrates’ courts may initially find themselves in a situation where there is an excessive workload. In certain cases one may perhaps have to monitor the situation very carefully so as to ensure that the work load is not merely transferred from one part of the judicial system to another thus creating the same problems. However, I am quite sure that the hon the Minister and his staff will watch the situation carefully. As I have already said, we have much pleasure in supporting this amendment.

Mr Speaker, all hon members support the Bill and they have fully dealt with the effect of inflation, the high costs in the Supreme Court and the necessity for further relief to an over-burdened staff of the Supreme Court.

*I shall therefore not repeat those arguments. I should like to refer to a trend, a situation which has already arisen in practice. This is that parties are to an increasing extent agreeing automatically to the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts when agreements are in writing. I am thinking of deeds of sale, mortgage bonds, bail bonds, hire purchases and transactions in terms of the legislation on credit agreements.

I believe the reason for this is that in many cases judgment by default is allowed in lawsuits arising from such causes of actions. However, I believe that one is also justified in thinking that these people already have the necessary confidence in the competence of our magistrates’ courts and the process through which execution takes place in the magistrates’ courts.

I believe that the public is realizing to an increasing extent that the standard of the administration of justice in our magistrates’ courts has improved. I believe that this confidence is justified and, as the hon member for King William’s Town said, that the situation will improve further as our magistrates gain more experience as a result of this amendment. I also want to refer to the role played by the Legal Training Branch of the department in this connection. I note in their annual report that it is envisaged that an increasing number of courses will be held for magistrates in the administration of civil law. I believe that in future this will take place with very good results.

As I have already said, I do not want to debate the matter of the depreciation in the value of money again, but as the hon member for King William’s Town asked that we should constantly keep an eye on this situation, constant consideration should also be given to improved training of our magistrates, whether this be by means of degree courses and so on, because this can be a contributory factor which will enable us to increase the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts more regularly in future.

We set our courts two basic requirements. In the first place their integrity has to be above suspicion and in the second place our courts have to be accessible to the public at all times. The high costs of litigation could make our courts inaccessible to certain members of the public. The purpose of this Bill is to reduce such costs, and for that reason I take great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, I welcome the support this Bill has met with. I shall reply very briefly to the few points raised by hon members. The hon member for Sandton will pardon me if I refer to him more briefly this time because the point he raised was one of agreement. Therefore I shall probably react in more detail to the speeches of other hon members.

The report by Mr Justice Galgut which I made available, was not tabled in the normal way because by the time the report was received, the Hoexter Commission was already functioning. It was therefore quite clear that there could be a certain amount of duplication. After all, the terms of reference of the Galgut Commission were to concentrate primarily on procedure, whereas the Hoexter Commission concentrated on court structures. It was hardly conceivable that these two fields would not overlap. I therefore think we were rather wise in deciding to hold back the Galgut Report. However, I want to give the assurance that the parts of the report which are applicable and which according to the Hoexter Report would now seem to be implementable will receive the attention of the executive.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr Justice Galgut for the thorough investigation which he made. I want to thank him in particular for the fact that in spite of his advanced age he is still available for service on the Bench. It is perhaps not generally known that Mr Justice Galgut served on the Bench of the Appeal Court up to his seventieth year. I think he is now 76 years old and he still serves on the Bench of the Appeal Court in a temporary capacity when the need arises from time to time. He still renders excellent work. If the hon member who is now laughing a little cynically were to emulate him, perhaps we would be able to expect better things of him.

The hon member for Mossel Bay was quite right when he said that magistrates would to an increasing extent do important work in the civil sphere. It is true that up to now magistrates have done more criminal work, but I do not want to suggest that there has been an imbalance as a result of jurisdiction. This frequently attributable to a combination of circumstances, or to the parties choosing not to litigate at that level. This work should now increase perceptibly and that was what Mr Justice Coetzee was talking about. An application for judgment by default is lodged and then an expensive, intricate procedure at Supreme Court level is used for something which could just as well have been disposed of in the magistrate’s court. We can therefore expect a considerable increase in judgments by default and in unopposed cases. I concede at once that there may also be an increase in opposed cases.

The hon member for Nelspruit and others pointed out that magistrates have the opportunity to qualify in civil administration of justice, particularly through the Legal Training Division of the department. Unfortunately I do not have the figures in this connection at my disposal now, but proportionally hearings of magistrates are well adjudicated because so few of those cases are taken on appeal. However, I have reason to believe that we shall have to examine this aspect in the near future. We can then discuss the matter further.

The hon member for East London City made a very good speech. He gave us an elucidation of his expectations as regards the greater accessibility of our courts. However, he also raised another important matter, namely the need of a high standard of administration of justice. He said that the time of these scarce people with knowledge and expertise on our Bench should be encroached upon as little as possible. He suggested that as regards services to other departments, particularly in the rural areas, a special division should be established. As a matter of fact the department has already taken steps to concentrate to an increasing extent on the utilization of these scarce expert people. I think we have in fact succeeded in providing other departments with quality service—the so-called agency service. However, manpower is also scarce in this field and not only in the professional field. In a few rural areas towns are unstaffed or understaffed. As long as this task—the provision of agency services to the rural areas— is entrusted to the Department of Justice, it will be done as well as possible. The secret is, and will continue to be in future, to combine with this the utilization of expert persons—in other words, persons with legal qualifications—in order to utilize that expertise as well as possible. The ideal remains to make quality administration of justice available in even the most remote parts of South Africa. I hope that the final stage of the Hoexter Report will give more information on this. I want to thank the hon member for East London City for a very illuminating contribution.

The hon member Mr Theunissen put in a good word for the magistrates, and this was quite appropriate. As the hon member for King William’s Town also pointed out, Mr Justice Galgut referred to evidence given before the Galgut Commission. The judge came to the following conclusion and one cannot get away from this. He had the following to say about the increase in jurisdiction:

What we are doing now should have been done long ago, namely to adjust cases to the depreciation in the value of money. As far as the present session of Parliament is concerned it is still an interim measure. The necessary steps have to be taken as soon as possible when a senior judge such as Mr Justice Coetzee draws attention to a problem and when a report such as the Galgut Report points this out and when one’s common sense tells one that the time has come to take action.

†The hon member for King William’s Town suggested that we should have a mechanism to review the question of jurisdiction more regularly. I agree that in order to do justice to the steps which we are taking today, we should have such a mechanism. I also visualize that the Hoexter Commission may very well deal with this matter. I will therefore not refer to it in detail but will wait for the Hoexter Commission’s report to see what its findings on this topic are.

*Hon members raised a few interesting points. I have referred to most of them. I want to tell the hon member for Nelspruit that he touched on a very important point. An increasing number of parties are opting for the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court in terms of section 45 of the Magistrates’ Court Act. One is sometimes surprised that so little use is made of the mechanisms in existing legislation. If parties wanted to be sensible and wanted to save costs, they could frequently make use of these mechanisms. In most cases hire-purchase contracts contain such a provision. However, parties involved in a civil case—even where as much as R1 million is at issue—are also able to enter into an agreement in which they may submit to the monetary jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, at this late hour on a Friday afternoon it would perhaps have been more appropriate to discuss the possibility of an early adjournment, but since no one has taken the initiative in this respect, I shall proceed. [Interjections.] I therefore move:

Section 3 of the Admission of Advocates Act, 1964 (Act 74 of 1964) requires that any person who wishes to be admitted as an advocate shall inter alia satisfy the court firstly that he is a South African citizen or has been lawfully admitted to the Republic for permanent residence therein and is ordinarily resident in the Republic; secondly that he has obtained the degree baccalaureus legum at a South African university and thirdly that he has passed not less than one course in each of the Afrikaans, the English and the Latin language prescribed or recognized by a South African university for a baccalaureus degree.

Two of the independent states the territory of which previously formed part of the Republic of South Africa—the so-called TBVC countries—already have their own universities with faculties of law at which law degrees are offered which, in regard to the syllabus and standard of instruction do not differ materially from South African law degrees. I am referring here to the University of Bophuthatswana and the University of Transkei.

Owing to the fact that there are citizens of the countries in question who have acquired legal qualifications at their own universities, but who have residential rights in the Republic of South Africa, and the other way round, a need has arisen for the reciprocal recognition of legal qualifications for the purposes of the admission of advocates and attorneys.

After the General Council of the Bar of South Africa, the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa and the Government departments concerned were approached in this connection, agreement was reached that certain foreign legal qualifications would in fact be accepted locally for the abovementioned purpose, on condition that control be exercised over the syllabus and standard of instruction in this connection. The existing requirements concerning citizenship, residential rights and language proficiency are not affected by this amendment.

†Mr Speaker, the purpose of the Bill now before the House is to give effect to the said arrangement as far as the admission of advocates in South Africa is concerned. Clause 1 provides for the acceptance of a degree or degrees obtained, in a country which has been designated by the Minister of Justice after consultation with the General Council of the Bar of South Africa, provided that a South African university with a faculty of law has certified that the syllabus and standard of instruction in respect of such degree or degrees are equal or superior to those required for the degree of baccalaureus legum of a university in the Republic. It is also proposed in clause 1 of the Bill that the required courses in the Afrikaans, English and Latin languages may be passed either at a university in the foreign country concerned or at a South African university.

The Acts in terms of which independence was grated to Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, inter alia, provide that certain categories of persons ceased to be South African citizens and became citizens of the countries concerned, but that no such person resident in South Africa at the time of the attainment of independence of any such country forfeited any existing rights, privileges or benefits by reason of the provisions of those Acts only. In view of the judgment in Ex Parte Moseneke, 1979 (4), SA 884 T, it is clear that in this way the persons concerned retained, among others, their right of permanent residence in the Republic of South Africa. However, in terms of section 7(1)(a) of the Admission of Advocates Act, 1964, in its present form, such a person may, because he is no longer a South African citizen, be suspended from practising as an advocate if he fails to obtain a certificate of naturalization in terms of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, within a specified period. It is therefore clear that provision for the acceptance of legal qualifications obtained in the TBVC countries will be incomplete if the Act is not also amended to exempt citizens of those countries who enjoy permanent residence in South Africa and who are ordinarily resident in the Republic, from the obligation of obtaining a certificate of naturalization. A proposal in this regard is contained in clause 2 of the Bill.

In conclusion I wish to thank the General Council of the Bar of South Africa for its willingness to accept the provisions of the Bill, which to my mind constitute a modest but by no means insignificant contribution to the idea of co-operation in Southern Africa.

Mr Speaker, during the 1983 session of Parliament certain amendments to the Attorneys’ Act were passed with the consent of the whole House, amendments allowing qualified attorneys who had previously practised in certain designated countries to take up practice in South Africa without the necessity of having to achieve further qualifications and without having to serve any further periods of articles. The amending Bill before us now in certain respects brings the Admission of Advocates Act into line with the legislation concerning attorneys to which I have referred. The provisions of this Bill specifically entitle a candidate to admission as an advocate in the Republic if he has obtained a suitable legal degree at a university recognized by South African universities as being up to standard, in a country designated by the Minister after consultation with the General Council of the Bar. As the hon the Minister has already said in his opening remarks, the target of this Bill is in fact the TBVC countries, those countries which were formerly part of the South African territory. An added provision is that such person, prior to admission, shall, as beholds every South African advocate, have obtained proper credits in the subjects of English, Afrikaans and Latin.

Two points should be noted. The first is that in the independent territories adjacent to South Africa, new universities are being planned, established and in fact are growing. Graduates from these universities will in time increase in numbers and at least some of them will in the years to come find occasions to appear in our courts and perhaps even practice in our towns and cities. There is clearly a need for legislation of this sort, and possibly a need which will show itself even more strongly as time passes.

The second point to note is that this Bill by specifically involving our universities and the General Council of the Bar, as also the discretion of the Minister, creates adequate safeguards to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the high standards demanded by the legal profession of its members.

Clause 2 of the Bill is a clause about which I am considerably less enthusiastic. Its terms exempt such persons as we have been discussing from taking out South African citizenship within a six year period, a requirement which applies to all other non-South Africans practising at our own Bar. I cannot help but smile at this amendment for I discern in it an element of Government cynicism. The general rule is that advocates practising in South Africa must be citizens of our country, or must within a six year period acquire such citizenship. That is a good rule, particularly when one considers that advocates are fully invested officers of the Supreme Court of South Africa and, further, that the Supreme Court of South Africa is the third arm of our governmental system. However, let me say immediately that I understand the need for this provision in this particular Bill. This provision does in fact bring relief to people born in this country who through no fault of their own can never attain citizenship of South Africa. Those are, however, matters which are best debated when those specific issues arise.

Did you say “never”?

Yes, never. Well, not while this Government is in office.

It is ironical in the extreme—if I may put it to the hon the Minister—that, once this Bill is passed, an English graduate from Oxford may not practise as an advocate in this country unless he becomes a citizen of the Republic, while a graduate of, say, the University of Transkei or Bophuthatswana, who was probably born in this country, may practise in South Africa only if he does not become a citizen.

Provided that he is permanently resident here.

Mr Speaker, that interjection is running ahead. I am only discussing the citizenship aspect at this moment. Somewhere along the line the principle has been lost and has been superseded by political and ideological considerations. Be that as it may, this first paragraph of clause 2 of the Bill is certainly necessary if Black South Africans holding citizenship of an independent homeland are to be accommodated as advocates. As a result of that, we will support that paragraph.

Paragraph (b) of clause 2 of the Bill, which amends section 7 of the principal Act is, however, not acceptable to the PFP. Section 7 of the Act relates to the suspension of advocates from practice and the removal of their names from the roll of advocates. The reason for the suspension or the possible suspension of advocates from the roll of advocates are set out quite specifically in the principal Act and are as follows: An advocate is subject to suspension or disbarment if he ceases to be a South African citizen; if he fails within the time allowed to obtain citizenship; if he fails to pass the prescribed examinations in English or in Afrikaans; and if, being a person practising in another country, yet admitted here in the Republic, he ceases to practise in that other country, or that other country—that is where he practises—ceases to be a designated country. Those are basically the reasons and the causations for the possibility of an advocate being suspended or disbarred. These reasons are all clear to me and, I am sure, to everybody in this House. They are factual and easily understood.

However, what does the hon the Minister now propose in this paragraph (b)? He proposes to make provision for suspension and disbarment of the person admitted in terms of an earlier provision of this Bill once this person ceases “to belong to a category of persons”. Yet, nowhere in the principal Act nor in this Bill is any mention whatsoever made of “a category of persons”. What is meant, I ask the hon the Minister, by the words “a category of persons”? Where in this legislation is such category or, for that matter, any category at all defined? Furthermore, where in the Act is it made compulsory to belong to any category of persons? I also say that no specific power at all is granted to the Minister in the Act or in this Bill.

Mr Speaker, may I ask a question?

Mr Speaker, may I just finish my argument? Should the hon member wish to ask me a question just before I sit down, I shall do my best to answer it. Also, no specific power is granted to the Minister to create any categories at all. The mystery deepens. It deepens, Mr Speaker, for such persons as are mentioned in clause 1 of the Bill either qualified at the time of their admission or they did not. The very terms of clause 1 of this Bill do not allow of an advocate losing a qualification once it has been obtained.

Let us look at this more closely. To qualify and be admitted as an advocate, a recognized degree from an approved university in a designated country is required, as also credits in English, Afrikaans and Latin. No provision is included concerning the continuing practice in any other designated country. So, once a person has qualified in terms of this new provision, that qualification cannot and should not be negatived at a later date, even if the university concerned is closed down in later years or the designation is withdrawn from the country of origin of the person concerned. At the time that the person was qualified he was admitted, the university degree then obtained was recognized and the country involved was then properly designated. Surely it is not the intention of the hon the Minister—and I want him to react to this—to disbar advocates from practising purely because in five or maybe ten years from now the specific country for instance loses its designation. Surely that would be a case of victimizing an individual quite wrongly. Wherein lies the justice of that?

There is, however, another aspect to this Bill which I should like to discuss. It allows of disbarment if the person concerned has ceased “to comply with conditions determined by the Minister”. I want to know from the hon the Minister what conditions are meant here? Neither in the Act nor in the Bill is to be found any empowerment at all which gives the Minister the right to set any conditions. The terms of the Act are peremptory. The discretions which are allowed to the Minister are specific, and they are limited, and there is no provision entitling the framing of regulations. I believe that this particular sentence is without meaning or force. However, even if it did have some legal effect, what sort of conditions does the Minister have in mind? Hopefully he will, when replying to this debate, enlighten us. Are they conditions relating to the practice of law? Are they conditions relating to the upholding of the standards of the administration of justice or are they conditions, as I suspect, relating to matters quite divorced from the law?

So, Mr Speaker, you must have deduced by now that during the Committe Stage of this Bill we will contest clause 2(b) of the Bill. Even if this provision should pass into, legislation, I would say to the hon the Minister that I doubt its validity. Quite frankly, I think the hon the Minister should over the weekend give consideration to withdrawing paragraph (b) of clause 2 of the Bill.

Penultimately I should like to pose a question which I hope the hon the Minister will answer or will clarify when he replies to this debate. Clause 2(a) has the effect of preventing people, whose careers we have been discussing, from being disbarred on the grounds of not obtaining citizenship. Section 3 of the principal Act, however, deals with the qualifications required before admission as an advocate is allowed. A prerequisite for admission; contained in section 3(1)(c) of the Act, states that the person concerned must be a South African citizen or a person lawfully admitted to the Republic for permanent residence therein, and is ordinarily resident in the Republic. Therefore, the legislation protects, say, South African Transkeians from disbarment on certain grounds. Despite the legal case he quoted, however, I want to know whether the hon the Minister is absolutely satisfied that the provisions of the legislation do in fact allow the admission of such persons in the first place.

I raised this point with members of the hon the Minister’s department and I was informed that section 10 rights are de facto and de jure rights of permanent residence. I should like the hon the Minister to confirm this assertion and, furthermore, to explain …

Have you read the Moseneke judgment?

No, Sir, I have not. However, if the hon the Minister is prepared to lend it to me, I shall read it.

You can borrow it for the weekend.

Very well. However, I would like the hon the Minister to make a statement on this matter. I should like to know why section 3 is not, in accordance with section 7, suitably amended to cater for the cases that we have been discussing.

Finally, Sir, I want to say that our overriding consideration in contemplating this Bill is that it opens the door to graduates from proximate Southern African territories and creates the opportunity for them to practise law in the land of their birth. Some of us feel that this right should never have been taken away from them in the first place. Therefore, we shall support this Bill at the Second Reading but we shall oppose paragraph (b) of clause 2 at the Committee Stage which we would not like to have taken before Monday.

Mr Speaker, I was afraid that the honeymoon could not last indefinitely and apparently it has now come to an end. Unfortunately, the matter of colour has crept into the discussion of this Bill with the result that the official Opposition is finding all sorts of reasons for opposing certain provisions of the Bill.

*If I understood the hon member for Sandton correctly, he has no real objection to clause 1 of the Bill. His reservations really have a bearing on clause 2 of the Bill. If I am interpreting the hon member correctly, his comments amount to the fact that certain people were discriminated against due to their having lost their citizenship, and through no fault of their own. Now that the position is being rectified the hon member is complaining because this is being done.

I said that we supported it.

Then the hon member for Sandton has a strange way of expressing his support for the clause concerned. First of all he presented a long argument about everything that is wrong with it. Then by a devious sort of argumentation he arrived at the conclusion that he would be supporting it. Nevertheless, I am pleased to hear that the hon member has eventually come to the point where he has decided to support the clause.

Is the honeymoon still on then?

That depends on your attitude to clause 2.

*The motivation for clause 1 is obvious. It has already been spelt out by the hon the Minister, and the hon member for Sandton also emphasized that the issue here is people who were South African citizens but have lost their South African citizenship due to the independence of the TBVC countries and—this is important—who still reside permanently in the Republic of South Africa. To compare these people to someone from the United Kingdom, who has never been a South African citizen, who is not a South African citizen at present and who does not reside permanently in the Republic of South Africa, is a completely unacceptable comparison. I have no choice but to suspect that the hon member for Sandton just wanted to engage in a little politicking. Hence, after he had finished playing his political game, he came to the correct conclusion.

With regard to clause 2, the hon member for Sandton tried to make an issue of the reference to a category of persons. I wanted to put a question to the hon member about that.

I regret that I forgot about it.

I shall therefore put it to him as a substantive statement. To me it is very clear that when reference is made in clause 2 to a person other than a person contemplated in paragraph (iii), the persons to whom reference is being made do, in fact, constitute a category of persons. [Interjections.] It is clearly a category of persons. What we have in clause 2 is therefore simply a different wording for the same thing in order not to repeat the precise wording of the preceding provisions. I suggest that the hon member is simply trying to see if he can score a few points. He does not simply want to say that he supports the measure, as is apparent from his attitude with regard to clause 1. Ultimately, this also amounted to approval.

I do not want to take up the time of the House any further. I shall therefore conclude by saying that we on this side of the House regard this measure as essential. It is a fair measure and we believe that it is a measure that deserves the support of this House. We on this side take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House also support the Bill wholeheartedly. In his Second Reading speech, the hon the Minister motivated it very clearly and in full. I also agree with the hon member for Mossel Bay as regards the remark concerning the particular category of persons. I think we are all aware of what we have in mind here, and that is why provision is being made for this in the Bill.

What is important is, the remark that the proposed amendment does not do away with the very important requirement laid down for admission. We find this provision in section 3(2)(c), viz that he is a South African citizen or that he has been lawfully admitted to the Republic for permanent residence therein and that he usually resides in the Republic. It is important to us that this be taken into consideration and retained in this amendment as well.

I think one could say that the main objective of this Bill is primarily to make provision that the standard demanded for an LL B degree, and which grants admission to the Bar, be maintained. We know that we in South Africa set very high standards for our jurists, our advocates in particular. We are also aware that the advocates themselves have established a system for the proper preparation and training—to put it that way—of good, efficient advocates by way of the so-called pupil system they have introduced. I also believe that the required examination that has to be written today also fulfils the important requirement that competent people be admitted to the Bar. This is the group of people from which judges are ultimately appointed. We believe that advocates, too, have a very important task and that they should also see to it that the standard be kept exceptionally high in their ranks. We are therefore satisfied that that objective is being borne in mind in this Bill and we take pleasure in supporting the amendments.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member Mr Theunissen for his support of this measure. This Bill is concerned with the administration of justice, professional standards in the administration of justice and the admission of persons to the profession. This is something that ought to be above politics and there is no reason why politics should be dragged in in this particular case, something which the hon member for Sandton was very keen to do. If some group or another were going to be prejudiced as a result of this Bill, one could understand it, but, in contrast, it in fact concerns the greater admissibility of the advocates’ profession to citizens of the TBVC countries. In reality, therefore, it is concerned with a favourable attitude towards the legal training and the jurists of the TBVC countries by creating the possibility for their legal qualifications to be recognized here, whilst the standards and the language requirements are being retained. As regards the TBVC countries, the compulsory requirement that a non-citizen has to become a citizen within a certain period of time is being done away with. The Bill is being introduced with the approval of the General Council of the Bar, and I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, the hon nominated member Mr Schutte will understand if I do not follow directly on his reasoning. I have a problem in respect of the same clause the hon member for Sandton mentioned. The title of the Bill talks about the “admission” of advocates, while the long title talks about the “admission” and subsequently talks about the “suspension of advocates and the removal of their names from the role of advocates”. I would say that the overall impact of the Bill is more related to the suspension and the removal than it is to the admission. In so far as “admission” is concerned the Bill attempts to bring about a normal state of affairs in respect of what in the last clause becomes known as “category of persons”. However, the bite in the Bill relates to the removal and suspension of advocates. It does leave one with the feeling, especially in clause 2(b), that qualifications that were earned at some stage can become null and void. This appears to be a strange state of affairs. I would like the hon the Minister to indicate perhaps at a later stage that that is not so and that in fact once they have achieved those qualifications, they will retain them for all times and that they can only be suspended or removed from the role of advocates for the other reasons that exist in the principal Act.

The hon member for Mossel Bay mentioned the honeymoon, and I must just take a little sideswipe at my friend the hon member for Sandton who suddenly, out of the blue, has become all cuddly with the “Bush colleges” and has now elevated them to the state of universities. In the past, that party has referred to the institutions which they now suggest are turning out people who qualify for admission as advocates, as “Bush colleges”. They are now suddenly qualifying as universities. [Interjections.] I am referring to the attitude of that party as a whole.

Make sure of your facts.

I am very sure of my facts. The hon member for Albany should know that people from our part of the world make very sure of their facts. It looks as if not only the Government is making amends by readmitting people to the bar but that hon members of the official Opposition, equally, are trying to make amends and recognizing a little progress and so on when things should be accepted as such.

The hon the Minister should clarify whether people can lose their qualifications in terms of the power entrusted to him. I understand that he had consultations in this connection with the General Council of the Bar. I do not agree that the use of the terminology “category of persons” clarifies the matter any more than the terminology which was used in the other paragraph. It in fact introduces a slight element of suspicion as if there is an attempt to cover something up rather than to clarify it.

You should not be so suspicious.

After 35 years of National Party rule, one tends to be very suspicious. The hon members of the CP are terribly suspicious of the party which they once supported. The hon members of the PFP are even more suspicious. We are the one party which has really stayed stable and that has produced the goods, and the Government will ultimately have to follow us anyway. We are, therefore, entitled to be a little bit suspicious about this.

Jokes aside, we seek clarity on this matter. The general consensus is that there is much that is good in the Bill. We will be listening intently to the hon the Minister to hear whether he will explain the real hidden meaning of the second clause to our satisfaction. We will be supporting this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I cannot understand why the hon members for Sandton and King William’s Town have any problems at all with this legislation. The intention of this legislation is very clear from what the hon the Minister said. Certain requirements are being set in this legislation. Firstly, a person must be a South African citizen, or he must be granted lawful permanent residence in the Republic. He must also have the same law degree as those received from South African universities and he must also have passed a course in Afrikaans, English and Latin. What is also interesting is that the General Council of the Bar of South Africa, as well as the Law Society of South Africa and the State Departments concerned must have reached agreement on these qualifications. It is stated very clearly that the requirements regarding citizenship, residential rights and language ability are not being affected by this. I therefore do not know what the problem of the hon members is.

This legislation should be encouraged, since neighbouring states can now share in our legal system with its fine traditions. Just as South Africa obtained its legal system from other countries—first from Roman Law, which was carried over to Holland and which then developed into Roman-Dutch Law, which then found its way to South Africa—this fine legal system is also finding its way to our neighbouring states. We should encourage this and congratulate them on it. We take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, as the hon member for Sandton has already indicated, we are prepared to support this Bill, since it is clear to us what the hon the Minister’s object is with it. However, I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Sandton at the outset when he indicated that this legislation presented us with somewhat of a problem from a technical point of view. Clause 1 is relatively clear. It recognizes the qualifications obtained from universities in the TBVC countries and other countries that may be included in that category. However, the problem is that the problem that has to do with a person’s citizenship is being solved by way of a provision that has to do with a legal qualification. I think this is where we fall between two stools with this legislation. Let me try to give a further indication of what our problem with this really is. Clause 1 provides that we will accept the qualifications of this category of persons in order to admit them as advocates in any of our provincial divisions in the Republic of South Africa. When it comes to the suspension of the authorization of certain advocates to practise as advocates, the issue once again, is qualifications. Why do I say that there is a problem? We say that a person who has given up his citizenship of the Republic of South Africa due to the fact that he has become a Transkei citizen, for example, will not be suspended if he falls into the category created by clause 1, ie if he obtains such a qualification.

Now you yourself are using the word “category”.

Just wait a moment, I am coming back to that. Let me just try to explain to the hon member what the problem is. Say, for example, a citizen of Bophuthatswana lives in Soweto. He gave up his citizenship of the Republic of South Africa when Bophuthatswana became independent. However, if he obtained his legal qualification from Unisa, he gets nothing out of this Bill. That is my point. His name will still have to be removed from the roll of advocates. Do hon members now see what I am trying to explain to them? We are making an arrangement to try to solve a person’s citizenship dilemma by way of a provision which only has to do with the university where he obtained his qualification. A Black man who has lost his citizenship but who has a law degree from Unisa, after having lost his citizenship, will still fall under the provisions of section 7 of the principal Act, and will have to give up his right to practise as an advocate in South Africa. We have no problem with the aim of the Bill. It is clear to us what we are attempting to do. However, I find it a strange way of going about it and I have tried to give an indication of the type of case we could be faced with, of a person who falls between the two categories and can therefore not be assisted by this legislation. I have tried to draw up an amendment which one could move, but it seems to me that it would be very difficult to do so because it could possibly deal with a part of the Act which is not covered by the Bill before us.

The hon member for Sandton also discussed the question of permanent residential rights and the hon the Minister assured us that as far as our law is concerned, the rights in terms of section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act, are accepted as being the same as permanent residential rights. I concede at the outset that I did not read the case the hon the Minister quoted. However, I just want to refer to section 3 …

I can let you have it.

I would be pleased, but I shall accept the word of the hon the Minister in this regard. I just want to point out one problem to him. Section 3(1)(c) of the principal Act reads:

I can accept that if a court has found that section 10 rights, in effect, mean permanent residential rights, this solves part of the problem. However, does the court ruling also go so far as to cover the section where it is stated: “… or that he has been lawfully admitted to the Republic for permanent residence”? That is not what happens to this Black man, however. He is someone who was borne here and who has lost his citizenship. It is therefore somewhat different in that respect. The Afrikaans version reads as follows:

Permanent residential rights are one thing, but it is a completely different thing whether he was lawfully admitted to the Republic for permanent residence. I should very much like the hon the Minister to indicate to us whether the court ruling to which he referred also covers that aspect. If it does, we do not have a problem, of course. I should like to hear his comment on that score, however.

I should also like to comment briefly on clause 2(b), which was also dealt with by the hon member for Sandton. I must also express my surprise concerning the way in which this paragraph was worded, since one is not at all sure what is being envisaged. In so far as a legal qualification qualifies a person to be admitted as an advocate, one assumes that is is something that is not going to change, apart from the fact that the country in which he qualified no longer falls into the category of which the hon the Minister spoke and apart from the fact that the standards of the university where he qualified have perhaps dropped with the passage of time. The fact of the matter is that if a person was admitted at a particular time because the standards of the university concerned were adequate at the time, that qualification should not change at any stage in the future. One obtains a qualification only once. It is in this respect that we have a problem with the wording “… if he has ceased to belong to a category of persons or to comply with conditions determined by the Minister, after consultation with the General Council of the Bar …”. That is what we cannot understand.

That is the category of which you yourself spoke.

I think I must cross swords with the hon member for Mossel Bay at this point. His interpretation of the clause concerned is probably incorrect. I do not think the category to which reference is being made here necessarily constitutes persons who qualified in terms of the new subparagraph (iii) which is being inserted into clause 1, since it would not be necessary to refer in clause 2(b) to “a category”. Then one is simply referring back to the numbered clause, and I therefore think the hon member’s interpretation is perhaps incorrect. We would very much like to have clarity on what is being envisaged here, what the category or categories could possibly be and what condition or conditions the hon the Minister can lay down. Once again, if there is another reason why the Minister is of the opinion that he has to create a situation in which a person can be deprived of the right to practise as an advocate in South Africa, we must have clarity about this. Such provisions must preferably then be written into the legislation. However, we must not create the impression by way of an exception that such a person can be deprived of his right to practise. We are telling him that 10 years ago his qualification was adequate and that he could, in fact, practise, but that his qualification is no longer adequate. We should therefore like to have clarity about what is meant in clause 2(b). We sincerely hope that we can be given a clear explanation on that score, otherwise I am afraid we will be compelled to oppose this legislation, or to move some amendment or another to rectify the situation. If one listened to what hon members on the opposite side of the House had to say about that, there should be no problem with the intention. One gains the impression that we all agree about the intention concerning what the legislation ought to achieve. However, we should very much like to be made clear in the legislation as well. We support the Bill, however.

Mr Speaker, the debate has undoubtedly produced some very interesting facets and one of these is that the hon members of the official Opposition support the Bill, but they nevertheless tried to advance a number of reasons to indicate why they do not support it. A second interesting facet is the great deal of guesswork that came from the ranks of the official Opposition concerning what the meaning of a particular subsection was supposed to be. In this regard I should like to refer them to Bunglewitch’s law, viz “He who guesses wrongly is probably right”.

†Mr Speaker, I think this is an appropriate time to move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, in view of the normal hours that the brotherhood of the legal profession work, I think they have worked too hard today and I therefore move:

That the House do now adjourn.

Agreed to.