This clause provides for the method of payment of the subsidies dealt with in this Bill, and in terms of the new section 6 (2), the basis on which the subsidy is payable is determined. We have indicated during the Second Reading that this is unacceptable to us and we will vote against it.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 2:

This clause sets out the basis on which the Administrators of each province have to apply for the funds they require. As we do not accept this concept of subsidies on this basis, this clause is not acceptable to us either.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Witbank and others made reference to the fact that the provinces would be entitled, as of right, to claim a subsidy to meet their financial requirements and that the Administrators would no longer be in the position of having to go cap in hand to the Treasury for their financial requirements, Sir, if any fact destroys that argument it is the very wording of this clause, because it will be seen in line 9 that the principal Act refers to moneys which are due to the province. That is now being deleted; there is no question of moneys being due to the provinces; there is no legal obligation; the Administrators must now ask for what is required by the provinces. In other words. Sir, this matter is left entirely in the hands of the Treasury. I do not know how an Administrator is going to formulate a budget in any secrecy because secrecy will no longer be necessary, because he must present his budget for Treasury approval before he goes to the provincial council for a rubber stamp approval of the budget. An Administrator, in presenting his budget, will now go to the provincial council and say, “Gentlemen, the Treasury has said that these are our needs; they have approved of these items as representing our needs; this is the money which we want, and if you say anything about this, of course, then the Treasury will not give us the money for the province”. This will reduce the provinces, as far as financial matters are concerned, to a farcical situation when Administrators, present their budgets in the provincial councils. I mention this as a further reason as to why we oppose this clause of the Bill.

I am afraid the hon. member for Green Point does not understand this position correctly. The moneys referred to here as being “due to” the provinces are moneys collected in terms of the provinces' taxation powers, which are now being withdrawn. As regards the moneys which will henceforth be paid over, the directives are laid down in clause 1, which has already been approved. The moneys will be paid over in accordance with those directives. There will no longer be moneys which will be collected in terms of a taxation ordinance.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 3:

Sir, this is the clause to which we have the greatest objection as it takes away from the provinces the right to levy personal tax or income tax. It is a decision made purely by the Government; it is not a decision in terms of any of the three reports—the Borckenhagen report, the Schumann report or even the Franzsen Commission’s report, because the Government has not accepted the second section of the Franzsen Commission’s recommendation. This is a clause which indicates to us that the Government is determined to have the finances of the provinces in their own hands. We believe that the effect of this, as we have already said, will be to detract from the autonomy of the provinces and therefore we will vote against this clause.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The problem of oil pollution, resulting from the tremendous increase in the oil traffic by sea, especially along the Cape sea route since the closure of the Suez Canal in 1967, is so well known that it is unnecessary for me to elaborate on the necessity for the Bill which is before the House now. Consequently I am going to confine myself to the contents of the measure itself, but allow me to point out that this legislation will mainly be applicable to incidents of oil pollution which may occur within the territorial waters and fishing zone along the South and South-West African coastline. The Government does not have the power to enforce legislation outside these areas.

In the main the Bill contains the following provisions:

1. (a) The discharge of oil or a mixture of oil from a ship within the territorial waters and fishing zone of South or South-West Africa shall be an offence, unless it is done for the purpose of saving life or of preventing damage to a ship or when it is done in consequence of damage to a ship and all reasonable steps are taken for preventing it. Furthermore, it should not be possible to attribute the leakage of oil to negligence. (Clause 2). A fine not exceeding R20 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or both may be imposed in respect of offences in this regard. Furthermore, this clause places the onus on the accused. This is in keeping with a provision contained in both TOVALOF (i.e. the international insurance scheme for owners of tankers) and CRISTAL (i.e. the international insurance scheme for oil-cargo owners).
2. (b) If oil is discharged from a ship into the territorial waters and fishing zone, the Minister of Economic Affairs may require the owner or master of the ship in question, at his own expense—
   1. (i) to unload the oil from the ship or oil from a specified part of a ship and to dispose of it in such a manner as the Minister may direct;
   2. (ii) to move the ship to a place specified by the Minister or to leave the ship where it is;
   3. (iii) to destroy the ship in question or a part thereof or to destroy the oil or a certain quantity of the oil on the ship; and
   4. (iv) to take any other steps as may be specified by the Minister to prevent further oil pollution, if there is any.

   The Minister himself may take any of these steps if the master or the owner of the ship fails to obey any order given by the Minister. (Clause 3). Any person who is guilty of the offence of intentionally failing to comply with an order in terms of this clause, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding R100 000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years in respect of each day on which the offence continues. If, as a result of the omission on the part of the owner, the Minister decides to take such steps as have just been set out, the owner is in any case also responsible for the expenses incurred, as provided in clause 5 (9), and such expenses may be recovered from him, as provided in clause 5 (10).

3. (c) A port captain who suspects on reasonable grounds that the Act has been contravened in respect of any ship, may withhold a clearance for the departure of such ship, unless the ship in question has undergone repairs to his satisfaction or unless the owner has deposited with him an amount deemed by him, in consultation with the Secretary for Industries, to be sufficient for removing such oil pollution as may have taken place.
4. (d) Clause 5 of the Bill provides that the Minister may order the owner of a ship, be it directly or through the master of or agent for that ship, to remove at his own expense any oil pollution caused by the ship of that owner. Failure on the part of the owner to remove oil pollution, may incur him a fine not exceeding R100 000 and/or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years in respect of each day on which the offence continues. In such a case the Minister himself may cause the pollution to be removed and recover the costs from the owner. Furthermore, this clause provides that the Minister may, for the purposes of the removal of oil pollution, require, for a consideration, any goods or services from any person who is capable of delivering and/or rendering such goods and/or services. If any person is guilty of intentionally refusing or failing to comply with such a requirement, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding R2000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or both.
5. (e) For the purposes of this legislation the Minister may delegate his powers and he may establish such bodies as he may deem necessary, as laid down in clause 6.
6. (f)Any person authorized thereto by the Minister or any member of the South African Police or of the police force of the Railways may go on board any ship in the territorial waters and fishing zone of South or South-West Africa in order to carry out an inspection, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that any provision of this Act has been contravened in respect of such a ship.
7. (g) In terms of clause 8 the Minister is being authorized to make the necessary arrangements with the local oil companies for storing and maintaining equipment and sprays. The majority of these arrangements have already been made administratively, but this legislation would obviously not have been complete without a provision of this nature. The clause also contains statutory requirements in order to ascertain the correctness of any return, etc., in regard to the equipment and supplies in question.
8. (h) Clause 9 of the Bill makes provision for the establishment of a fund to be known as the Oil Pollution Prevention Fund. This clause also comprises the usual provisions found in legislation in regard to the financing and administration of moneys and the purposes for which the moneys in funds may be used. However, there is one aspect which I want to emphasize in regard to the fund, which is to be established in terms of this legislation. In the beginning of my speech I referred to TOVALOP and CRISTAL, the two international insurance schemes. One of the conditions laid down by both of these schemes is that claims in terms of the two schemes shall be reduced by the amounts received from other quarters towards defraying the cost of combating oil pollution. Accordingly I want to make it very clear—and in this regard I want to refer to the wording of clause 9 (3)—that expenditure from this fund is recoverable and is only intended to cover provisionally the costs incurred in regard to combating oil pollution. Therefore, any expenditure from this fund is expenditure which the Government as a national Government may claim back in terms of the said international scheme, within the limits set in such schemes.
9. (i) I have already referred to the fines and penalties which are prescribed in clause 10 and which relate to the more serious offences in terms of the Act, whilst the remaining clauses, i.e. clauses 11 to 14, require no further explanation.

Mr. Speaker, with this measure a further step is now being taken in the Government’s endeavours to deal with incidents of oil pollution. Of necessity this legislation had to he drafted with due regard to international practices and conventions, and I can foresee that, owing to the unpredictability of situations cropping up in the fight against oil pollution and also in the light of possible future changes in international practices in order to enable countries to combat this evil more effectively, further additions and adjustments will have to be effected in this legislation.

The fines and penalties in certain classes of offences and acts of commission may appear to be severe on the surface, but if one bears in mind the tremendous costs involved in combating oil pollution and, I may say, the reckless and intentional irresponsibility on the part of some masters of oil tankers and even ordinary freighters, I believe hon. members will agree with me that in actual fact the penal provisions are not so severe. In this regard the penalties prescribed are not really more severe than are those contained in the legislation of, for instance, Britain and the United States of America.

Sir, this Bill which has now come to us has been awaited by this side of the House for a very long time. We are pleased to see that it has come, although it has now come late in the session, and may I say at once that we on this side of the House will support the Bill. We are supporting it not because we believe that it is adequate to deal with the problem which is presenting itself now with greater and greater emphasis here in South Africa, but because we believe it is the foundation on which legislation can be built in future. It is quite clear that if this Bill is not passed during this Session, we are likely to go through the period of the recess with no adequate powers in the hands of the Minister or his department to deal with a catastrophe which might present itself. But there are other facets of oil pollution, other than that of a major catastrophe, and I want to deal with those in a moment or two. That is why I say that this measure, good as it is, and going as far as it does, is still in our opinion, and will be found to be, not yet adequate to cope with the difficulties which we are facing in our territorial waters and on our beaches.

The basic principles which we see on this side of the House in dealing with two types of pollution relate, firstly, to what one might call a major catastrophe, which I shall refer to presently, the kind of thing which could have happened in the case of the Wafra. It could have happened, but it didn't and we were extremely fortunate; a lot of people did very good work and worked very hard and their efforts were fortunately successful. But a catastrophe like the Torrey Canyon could cost our coasts perhaps millions in lost revenue, depending on where the catastrophe takes place. There is more to it than that, and I would have liked the Bill to have, somewhere or other, and perhaps at the very commencement, asserted in our legislation what we are trying to protect. The old type of Bill which started off by saying: “Whereas so and so and so” is a very good type of legislation, I think, for a measure of this kind, so that it will indicate not merely what the statutory provisions will be for the purposes of dealing with pollution, but what we are trying to protect in South Africa, why we are taking these measures and what is at stake which has compelled Parliament now to come along with legislation of this character. This is quite tough legislation, and we are supporting it, but what does it state: why is Parliament doing this? There is so much at stake that I think it would have warranted some recounting in the Bill itself.

Then I go on, as I say, to the possibility of a major catastrophe. In the case of the Wafra and other cases overseas it has been shown over and over again that there are certain basic principles which are necessary for the competent authority to deal with a major catastrophe. The competent authority is not in a boat out at sea. In this case it is the Minister, or a person to whom the Minister has delegated his authority. He is land-based. He is in Cape Town, or in Pretoria, or somewhere else, but he is land- based. He has to get information about what is happening and he has got to get it quickly. The catastrophe must be reported to him quickly, with the least possible delay, so that he shall be seized of the information and the circumstances at the earliest possible moment. That person or persons must not be doing an 8.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. job. Major oil disasters are not going to wait for public servants to come on duty before a ship piles up on the rocks. The central authority must be on duty 24 hours a day and seven days a week, because this is much too big a catastrophe to run the risk of something happening when there is nobody in authority who can be reached quickly by the lesser authorities, the lesser people, who have the responsibility of reporting such a happening at the first opportunity. They must be in a position to know immediately to whom they have to go and they must be able to find that person to whom they have to report. So it is the speed with which the information can be brought back to the central authority which is of prime importance.

Secondly, Sir, that authority must have full power to act, and as far as certain types of major disaster are concerned that is catered for here, and the authority is given under certain circumstances to the Minister. But, Sir, I want to deal for a moment with the kind of thing which is not a catastrophe where a boat comes ashore or where it breaks in two. We have had both types of catastrophes here in South Africa. But I want to deal with a case which happened off Durban only a matter of a few months ago, where a loaded ship, drawing 48 feet of water, coming down from the Persian Gulf, had an accident to her own physical structure with the result that water could come into the ship She was not a great distance from Durban. She radioed Durban to see whether they would let her into port, but with that draught they could not let her in, so she had somehow to lighten her load, so that she would draw less water before she could come in to Durban for very urgent repairs. This was not damage to the steering nor the engines, but to the structure of the ship, the plates on the ship Sir, that ship went out, across the Mozambique current, not any very great distance; she was in jeopardy and she discharged 18 000 tons of oil on to the Indian Ocean as soon as she was on the other side of the Mozambique current 18 000 tons of oil! No wonder the crews of the yachts taking part in the Cape to Rio race said that out in the middle of the Atlantic they came across vast slicks of oil, in the middle of the open ocean. Of course they would when this kind of thing is happening. This Bill was not on the Statute Book, That boat, for all I know, was outside our territorial waters; she had put the Mozambique current between herself and the shore so that the current would tend to keep that oil away out to sea. But the point, Sir, is that that actually happened only a few months ago. This last week we again had another case of a boat coming to Durban with the engines having broken down. Many of these modern ships, including tankers, are steered by power-steering. The old idea of the helmsman sitting there holding the wheel in his hand and going to port or starboard and that kind of thing, is out nowadays; these ships have power-steering. When once the engines break down, once something goes wrong with the power to your steering, then you cannot steer the ship. This was the trouble that we had with the ship to which I referred earlier on I am not going to go into all the details again—which came into Durban Harbour. It was in the harbour when the steering locked, and with the aid of tugs they had to keep that ship moving round and round while she was under way, in the centre of Durban Harbour. By the grace of God she did not touch another ship nor the oil sites nor did she do any other damage, but here she was, a fully-loaded ship, with oil for the South African Government. This can happen where you have power-steering on the ships, with the result that over and over again we have seen accidents or near-accidents, because the ship goes out of control as soon as the engines break down, and that is something that can happen at any time.

While I am on that subject, Sir, I want to say that later on there will no doubt be amendments to this Bill. With the passing of this Bill we will be breaking new ground. The Minister and his department will now at last have something that they can get hold of; they will be able to work in terms of the Statute; they can find out its insufficiencies, its inadequacies and so forth. But I want to say that as they go on and work with this Statute, they are going to find a number of inadequacies, and when the time comes, I want them to give serious consideration to the question of ships that sail our waters under a flag of convenience. How many times nowadays do we see ships all over the world, including the Wafra sailing under a flag of convenience. It was owned by the nationals of one of the greatest nations, perhaps the greatest, in the world. The ship was owned by citizens of that country and so was its cargo. All its business affairs was conducted by citizens of that country. However, it sailed under a flag of convenience. We are repeatedly getting trouble with ships sailing under flags of convenience. We are not able to control the manning of such ships. We are not able to control the method by which those ships are manned. There are reports, particularly in connection with the Torrey Canyon disaster, which showed that had a different code of standards of seamanship, what I would call “Western standards", been applied to the Torrey Canyon, that disaster need never have occurred. These are serious matters, Mr. Speaker, because of the potential harm involved to our country.

So, Sir, we look at this Bill as the legislative foundation on which can be built the law to deal with major disasters. But I want to get away now from the major disasters …

And come back to the Bill!

I hope the hon. member does not think this is a matter for levity, because I can assure him that this is no laughing matter. If his knowledge of the sea and what goes on there is so limited that he thinks the discussion of this Bill is a matter for joking, then I suggest that he rather go and play a game of billiards or amuse himself otherwise. I am quite prepared to leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, to rule me out of order should I move away from the subject matter of this Bill. The position then in so far as this Bill is concerned and the measures which can be taken thereunder, minor difficulties may arise. There is, for instance, the pumping out of the bilges, the pumping out of water and oil which have accumulated in the bilges and the pumping out of the oil tanks after a ship has discharged her oil cargo. This is deliberate. We come up against the fact that this can be done at night although it is in defiance of the provisions of this Bill. Yet it can be done at night and it will be almost impossible to trace its transgressor. When a ship is at sea, that is extraordinarily difficult. When it is well out and beyond the boundaries of our coastal waters, it will be difficult to say with any measure of accuracy that that ship was within our coastal waters when it transgressed by washing and pumping out its oil tanks and bilges, which always contain a certain amount of oil. In fact the aggregate of the oil coming from this source is amounting to so much that hundreds of miles of our coast line are being polluted by oil coming back to the beaches in what today are being called “pellets” and which range from little globules of the size of a mealie to something which may be nine or ten inches long and cigar-shaped. These accumulations of oil which have been in the sea for a limited period, be it long or short, are gradually being washed up on the beaches. These come from the discharge of oil, deliberately as I say, from ships which wash out their tanks or pump out their bilges. Furthermore, minor leakages may occur. These are stopped and the ship goes on leaving an oil slick behind it, a slick which may be half a mile, or one or two or three miles long.

We do not intend moving amendments to this Bill although in regard to this question of minor pollution, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider including in the definitions a definition of “installation”. The position is that in this definition we are dealing with ships. I believe that there is a discrepancy between the English and Afrikaans versions. I am not competent to be a judge of that but I have been told by an Afrikaans-speaking person that there is a discrepancy. We deal here with the question of a ship and it means any kind of vessel used in navigation. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider including in the definitions the word “installation” and defining it so as to deal with such matters as the off-shore mooring buoy and so forth. Perhaps a definition which is in use elsewhere could be used, such as: A platform, rig, pipeline or any method for conveying oil between one point and another. A ship is not an installation methods of pumping oil including rigs and platforms can lead to pollution by oil. If we include the word “installation” it could be used to cover that and the Minister’s powers can then be applied, not only to ships as defined, but also to installations as would he defined. One does not need any very great imagination to realize that there could be a considerable amount of pollution by oil at sea without a ship, as defined, necessarily being involved in the pollution.

I was dealing with the question of the need to have haste in bringing a message back to the authority in South Africa, a land-based authority, that is, the Minister or his nominee when there was a case of pollution. That, I hope, will go much further than a major catastrophe. One of the big problems facing our local authorities today, and it is facing people all along the coast, is to distinguish between a major and minor case of pollution. It has not been defined. The hon. the Minister's officials have tried to define it. I have attended meetings myself where officials have tried to define it. It is almost impossible, I must admit that it is a real problem. It has this difficulty. If you say that a major pollution must be reported to the Minister or his appropriate official but that a problem of minor pollution will be dealt with merely by the local authorities, then we are likely to get the people who are able to report the happening caught without knowing whether it is a major problem they should report to the Minister or his officials or report only to the local authorities. This can lead to very serious consequences. At the moment the decision is that when the polluting oil is floating on the sea, in other words water-borne, the local authority cannot deal with it. They do not only have no jurisdiction but they also do not have the wherewithal. They do not have the equipment and the resources to deal with it while it is water-borne. It is then entirely in the domain of the Minister although it may be a minor slick. I want to warn about this question of minor slicks. I myself have been by aircraft to have a look at a minor slick. When we got out to sea we found that there was only a matter of a couple of miles between what was the minor slick which was coming ashore and the major slick which was two or three miles further out, but which during the course of the day owing to the set of the wind and the current piled the two up together. Then it was no longer a minor slick but a major slick. This is one of the basic problems that will be left on the hon. the Minister’s plate, if I may put it that way, because we have to get quick information to the authorities concerning the occurrence of a major pollution, but we cannot define the difference between a major and a minor pollution. That we must leave to him, because we want to deal with all pollution from whatever source it comes, large or small, because small pollutions in the aggregate build up and are as I say, creating havoc on hundreds of miles of our coast line at the present time.

Then we come to another question in dealing with major pollution problems and catastrophes. The hon. the Minister cannot command the resources of the other Government departments. Here sits the hon. the Minister with his department today with four or five small vessels attached to the Department of Fisheries. Those are his resources. If he is to go beyond that, he must get assistance by agreement with a sister department. He cannot compel it. He can neither order the Navy with its naval vessels nor the Air Force with its aircraft to assist him. I have pointed out how difficult it is to identify a ship in connection with pollution when there is a big slick far out at sea. If it is at night, it is almost impossible. If the ship is close to the edge of our territorial waters, it can pull out and when the morning comes, there is nothing to indicate which ship it was that caused the pollution. I am speaking from memory, but I think I am right in saying that there are in South African waters round the Cape at any one moment now twenty tankers. Therefore, leaving out the fact that there are other ships who pump out bilges and so forth which have a certain amount of oil mixed with them, we have something like twenty tankers in the waters round the Cape. It may not necessarily be in our territorial waters. Some of these tankers may be further out. Now it is a case of identifying them. All authorities the world over have said that the only Teal means of absolute certain identification is by aircraft. A surface vessel approaching a ship that has been discharging oil, gives warning of its approach if it is in daylight. If it is at night, there is nothing to guide it. But an aircraft is the only means of identifying the ships, because it can travel fast enough to catch up with the delinquent ship at the time when it is in the process of creating the trouble or it is so close to the slick that it can be said with complete certainty that that ship is responsible for the oil slick. Then it can be identified. But then other forces have to be used and not the forces under the immediate command of the hon. the Minister. He can order neither the Army or Navy aircraft nor naval vessels. There are times when a vessel does what that vessel did the other day outside Durban when it pumped out its 18 000 tons of oil and then went into Durban harbour for the express purpose of undergoing repairs. In cases such as this, identification is not so difficult, because such a ship is putting itself at your mercy. It must do so in order to undergo repairs. But the ship that does not come in for repairs and has no intention of coming in to a South African harbour will be difficult to identify. This is one of the greatest problems that we have outside of an actual wreck on our coast or a similar catastrophe of that kind. There are vessels that are not coming into our ports at all and that do not have any intention of doing so. They are merely rounding the Cape, going up the coast, filling up in the Gulf and then coming back under load. Again they do not call in at our ports.

How are we going to deal with those ships? A ship that is seen by our aircraft to have deliberately flouted the provisions of this Bill should be arrested and brought into port. The hon. the Minister has no resources suitable for the purpose. Army aircraft or naval vessels should be used for this purpose. Therefore, in regarding this matter, we can only say that we hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to negotiate with his colleagues in the Cabinet in regard to their portfolios and their departments so that there will be the closest cooperation, We must leave it at that. We cannot amend the Bill so as to make provision for that. We can express the hope that that will be done, because if there is a failure at any time through lack of cooperation then somewhere or other, the Government, as a whole, must be blamed for it. The joint responsibility of hon. members of the Cabinet must then come right to the fore: The Government is responsible for it, but the members do not want to co-operate.

I must leave this particular point, but I leave it with a great deal of reluctance, because to my mind it is one of the key factors when it comes to the protection of our coasts against oil pollution. When this Bill has been signed by the President, in other words when it is enacted, it will succeed in what we are trying to determine here because it has got teeth in it, fierce teeth. The people who are concerned with this kind of activity or commerce are not going to worry about a R50, R60. R100 or R1 000 fine. They are not going to worry about a R1 000 fine because that is not only chicken-feed to them, it is canary feed. They are going to worry about the severe penalties in this Bill. We are concerned rightly because of the damage which it can do to our country. We must leave this here reluctantly, saying that the Government as a whole must take the responsibility for a case where there is a failure to get complete and adequate coordination and co-operation between one department and another. We shall do so if and when there is a failure to take prompt action to prevent a calamity from occurring, or to bring to book and made to pay for the damage, anyone who has defied the provisions of this legislation which we have before us.

I have referred to the flags of convenience and ships which do not call in at our ports. For a moment I want to deal with the question of the ships which do not call in at our ports. I know some of the difficulties which the hon. the Minister has to deal with in this case. In reply to questions put in this House, the Deputy Minister of Transport told us about 18 months ago that there are certain lanes in which these tankers were obliged to travel. He defined them. I met the captain of a tanker in Durban Harbour, and I spoke to him about the lanes which were laid down and which are, I believe, in force and accepted internationally as the lanes in which these ships have to travel. These are ships which do not make use of our South African ports. They are the difficult ones. If they infringe the provisions of this legislation deliberately when they are out at sea and they do not touch our ports, we have to be able to find the ships. Then we have to see that it is discharging its oil or its bilge water when it is washing out its tanks. We have to get the evidence and then we have to report the information back to the authorities in South Africa, who can say that we must take certain steps to arrest that ship. Then we have to have a vehicle available to arrest that ship, which can bring back the ship under escort to the port, whether it is an aircraft or a surface vessel, so that it can be dealt with. We must be able to arrest that ship, even if it goes outside our territorial limits, even if we have to accept the philosophy or rule of “hot pursuit” to bring it back into our territorial waters. We only have to have one or two cases, but until we get those cases we shall meet the position that I found when I spoke to the captain from this tanker in Durban. He said to me: “Mr. Mitchell, you tell me those are the lanes that we have to travel in. I want to tell you that you could not get me to go into that lane for all the tea in China”. He said that when he sees the way in which some of the skippers of loaded tankers handle their craft, he will get away as far as he possibly can from them when he is out in the deep blue sea. He told me: “You could not get me to travel in those lanes. I think it would be one of the greatest risks I have ever run in my life if I were to put my ship into a lane like that, of that width, under the circumstances you have around the South African coast”. This is fine. He was willing to go a long way out but the further out he goes, the further he has to travel, resulting in more costs.

The question of costs, of course, comes into it. Ships that go a long way out so as to avoid coming in close travel a greater distance on the curve and, as I say, it costs them much more money. This might lead to a situation such as we had in a South African port about ten days ago. This tanker comes to South Africa annually for a refit and for a certificate from the surveyor to show that it is seaworthy and is fit to carry on with its work again, it does its repairs, refits, gets its certificate and then goes on its way again. This ship is a naval tanker belonging to an overseas country. The country concerned runs oil in this tanker from the Far East to its own ports. On occasions, I believe, it will actually carry oil under charter, but this is quite immaterial. It does, however, carry oil for its own navy from the Far East to its own home ports. It comes to our South African ports for its annual refit, repairs and its survey in order to get a surveyor’s certificate. The reason for this is the following: When the captain was asked a series of questions in this regard he said: “You must remember that if I take the oil to my home port and I discharge it, I then have to go 120 miles out to sea before I am allowed to wash out my tanks. Then I have to go back into the port again for repairs, refit and for the surveyors to examine it for the certificate. When all that is done it takes me ten days to gel back again as far as Cape Town from where I go up the coast to the Persian Gulf. If instead of doing that I discharge the oil in my home port and then come straight back to a South African port, I can wash out my oil tanks, pump out my bilges and get all set and ready for the surveyor, I then go straight into a South African port where any repairs and refitting are done. The surveyor is on the job; he gives me my certificate and I can then leave from a South African port having saved ten days on the passage from my home port to South Africa, quite apart from the time it would have taken me to go out 120 miles from my home port to clean my tanks and then to put back into my home port which can easily take me a couple of days. I probably save at least 12 days and in this cutthroat competition which the big tankers are providing nowadays, these 12 days mean a vast amount of money to my Government.” We refit, repair and certify a tanker for a foreign navy annually. I am willing to give the hon. the Minister the name of the ship and a newspaper cutting which appeared in the newspapers only last week stating categorically that this tanker of a certain navy was in a South African port for its annual refit and overhaul.

These are the kind of things we have to deal with. This is what the hon. the Minister has to remember. We do not want to come to grief with a tanker of that character. We do not want our Minister to employ strong-arm tactics against a tanker and then to find out that it belongs to a foreign navy which has been making use of the facilities of our ports so as to save time on the double journey from the Gulf to its own country. These are the kind of practical difficulties we are up against. We accept this Bill and we believe that in practice it will be seen that there is much which will have to be amended and has to be done. The main principle of the quick reporting of any damage in the way of pollution is basic to the solution of this problem; this principle can only be achieved through the closest co-operation between the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and other departments and the hon. the Minister himself. It can only be dealt with if the hon. the Minister not only has teeth in the Bill but a weapon in his hand. This weapon must be a naval vessel or aircraft so that he will have the instruments to be enable to deal with an offender on the ocean at the time when the offence takes place. Along those lines he can only achieve what he is after with the co-operation of the other departments concerned.

There is one last point, in connection with clause 6 (b), where the Minister may establish such bodies as he may deem necessary to assist him in carrying out the provisions of this Act. I do not know what the Minister has in mind in regard to the particular bodies he may so create, but perhaps in the Committee Stage he will tell us what he has in mind so that we can visualize the kind of machinery that he anticipates selling up to assist him in the administration of this Act. We are supporting the Bill, Sir.

This problem of oil pollution is a particularly serious and very difficult problem. That is why I am also glad that the Opposition, with the hon. member for South Coast as spokesman, supports this measure and that the hon. member for South Coast put forward his case in a very responsible and dignified manner as someone who knows what he is talking about and would also like to render a service to South Africa. I must say that it is pleasant to listen to the hon. member for South Coast when he adopts the role of a patriarch, a role that suits his age.

This measure before the House today, for the establishment of a law to solve this problem of oil pollution, is definitely a very timely one. If we think back to the sea route around South Africa, which has been in use for centuries, and we consider the fact that in the past it was sailed for a very long time by mariners who used the wind to propel their ships, thereby not leaving a trace of oil behind, people in the time of Jan van Riebeeck, who was responsible for ships sailing around our coast, could never have thought there would be a time when this lovely coast would be polluted by the commercial fleets and what these fleets left behind would be a threat to our coasts and to coastal life. But times have changed. Not only have the number of ships and the freight capacity increased, but even the types of ships have become unrecognizable. The small sailing ships, which used to sail around our coasts then, had to make way for the gigantic ships plying our coasts today. They will also have to make way for the very big super ships, particularly the big tankers, which the hon. member for South Coast mentioned a moment ago, being constructed to a capacity of 500 000 tons. The bunker oil that every ship must take along today, and which is actually a bigger freight than the small sailing ships transported in the past, has already become a present-day source of pollution as far as we are concerned. The traffic rate around our coasts since the closing of the Suez Canal four years ago, has increased to such an extent that there are sometimes 1 400 ships en route around the Cape in the space of 10 days. It was also rightly mentioned here that on a single day more than 20 of these big oil tankers frequently sail past the southern tip of Africa. To a greater or lesser extent all ships waste or spill oil, even though it may be only to a very limited extent, because if a ship must use oil for its propulsion, lit always spills oil. More than a million tons of oil are annually spilled out upon the seas of the world, according to estimates. This problem of oil pollution is consequently also an international one, therefore receiving the attention of many countries, and it is to be hoped that a better understanding and better co-operation will grow out of this common threat with a view to obtaining control over the spilling of oil. This Bill now before the House is vitally necessary to grant the South African Government the authorization to take steps to prevent and combat oil pollution. Sir, the danger of oil pollution to South Africa is a bigger danger than is generally accepted. If we look at the navigation routes around the South African coast, we see that a stream of ships come along the East Coast of Africa from the Middle East, a second stream coming from the East and a third from the direction of Australia. All of them join together in a dense stream around the southern tip of Africa, and then proceed further to the West. Only a small percentage of those ships call in at our ports, although they pass very close to the southern tip, Agulhas and Cape Point on the international commercial routes, This results in a specific danger to the area I am responsible for. The continuous and almost unavoidable spilling of oil into the sea already forms a source of oil pollution on our coasts, and it can only be restricted if everyone concerned would co-operate to prevent it happening and to counteract it. But, Sir, when ships get into difficulties, as has happened frequently in recent years—I have in mind, for example, the number of ships, since 1967, which have got themselves into such difficulties, e.g. the Savella, the Esso Essen, the World Glory, the Kasimahen and the Wafra, which stranded on the south coast recently—we realize that the danger of this kind of disaster is greater than is generally realized. Only when these disasters take place is the threat brought spectacularly and pointedly to the attention of the wider public. The approximately 50000 ships that annually sail past the Cape must spill a tremendous amount of oil. This legislation makes timely provision for the combating of this problem. It gives the hon. the Minister, and those to whom he will allocate powers, the authorization to take action against ships that normally spill oil, by making it an offence to get rid of oil within the territorial waters and the fishing zones of our country.

Sir, I do not want to examine further the various points quoted here by the hon. the Minister and which are contained in the Bill, but I do just want to mention that the Opposition, in the debate we conducted here after the stranding of the Wafra, made a great fuss about the tremendous importance of legislation to regulate matters. When the Wafra ran aground on the rocks at Agulhas at the beginning of the year, they sounded off to such an extent that they even requested a debate. Sir, I do not know whether a law on its own will keep the ships off the rocks, although one gained that impression at the time. I am, in any case, grateful for the fact that this measure has been introduced, because there will now be the necessary authorization for co-ordinating matters, and I think it will be easier to combat oil pollution when such a disaster takes place. But even without this legislation, which I should like to welcome and wholeheartedly support, the Department of Industries carried out a particularly difficult task in a masterly fashion at the time of that last disaster. Not only was the Wafra dragged from the rocks and sunk with distinction by the South African Air Force, but the beaches of Bredasdorp were secured against further pollution by energetic action. The solvents were applied, at the time, in such a way that very little damage was done to the coast. The effects of the pollution were so slight that no inconvenience worth mentioning was caused.

Because of the drama which a stranded ship entails for people, and the publicity given to the event, thousands of people flocked to the wreck of the Wafra, which was then lying on the rocks. An interesting fact was that there was an even bigger crowd of people than during the peak periods of any of our holiday seasons. In lighter vein it was mentioned to me that the business undertakings in that area were benefited to such an extent that they eagerly want to know when we are sending another Wafra along. Since this Bill is granting authorization to make co-ordinated and purposeful action possible in the future, I cannot neglect to say thank you again to the Minister and to his staff under the leadership of Mr. Japie Venter, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Industries, and to congratulate them on their good work in the removal of the Wafra. I should like to do this on behalf of the thousands of interested parties and property owners in that vicinity. I should like to support this positive measure and I want to believe that in future we shall largely prevent and more easily combat oil pollution.

It is appropriate that the hon. member for Swellendam should have been the first supporting speaker on the Government side, because it was in his constituency that there very nearly occurred, earlier this year, the greatest marine disaster in the history of our country, I think he is quite correct also in congratulating the department on the contribution that they made at that time of crises. I think it would also be fair to say that it was the intervention of Providence, more than the preparedness of the Government, that was responsible for saving South Africa from that disaster.

He says also that this Bill has come timeously. We on this side of the House say that this Bill has come to this House through Opposition pressure and as the result of the near stranding of a number of other vessels off our coasts in addition to the Wafra. Indeed, it is not timeous—it was far too long delayed, and we are lucky that we have not had a disaster of the first magnitude. After all, Suez has been closed since 1967, and there has since been no reasonable anticipation of it being reopened. There still appears to be no reasonable anticipation of it reopening in the near future. Therefore we feel that this Bill, although very welcome, is very, very late in the day.

I should like to refer briefly to some of the salient features of the Bill. With regard to the creation of an offence to discharge oil into a prohibited area, I would like to draw the hon. the Minister's attention to the fact that his own definition of “prohibited area” is a very limited area indeed. It covers only our territorial waters and our fishery zone. The creation of an offence in that limited prohibited area, while welcomed and absolutely necessary in the light of present circumstances, does not go as far as we would like it to go in combating the problems that could arise. Under section 3, the Minister is taking powers to prevent pollution where oil is actually being discharged in a prohibited area. First of all, he can require the Master or the owner of a ship to take a variety of steps. We agree with those acts that he can call upon a Master or an owner to perform; and in the event of the Master or the owner not performing those acts, the Minister can himself perform those acts. I should like to draw to his attention something which I regard as an omission. I believe, namely, that we ought also to cover the position of the salvor and not only the Master and owner of a vessel. We ought also to cover the person who has taken a ship in salvage tow. Consequently, I ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this point with a view to moving an appropriate amendment in the Committee Stage, if considered necessary.

Another provision of this Bill enables a port captain to prevent the departure of a ship until repairs have been done to his satisfaction, that is in the case where the ship has sprung a leak and may cause oil damage. Or else a guarantee should be provided by the owner to the port captain’s satisfaction. This is a sensible provision, one which, I am sure, will be of great assistance in practice.

In terms of clause 5 the Minister may, when pollution has actually occurred, call upon the owner to remove the pollution, failing which the Minister himself may act. Machinery is set up in this clause by which the owner, or the Minister may act. I take it that this machinery supplements the machinery already set up or recommended to be set up by the ad hoc committee appointed by the Minister at the end of 1968, In any event, the machinery being set up by this clause will have to be carefully worked in with the machinery recommended by that ad hoc committee, presided over by Prof. Mallory.

I welcome clause 8 of the Bill particularly. This requires oil companies to keep anti-pollution materials and equipment available to meet any disaster that may occur.

Clause 9 sets up the Oil Pollution Prevention Fund while clause 10 makes provision for penalties, penalties which, stiff as they are, we on this side of the House support in view of the prevailing circumstances.

My main criticism against this measure is that it ought to have been introduced long ago. In any event, now that it has come, I do not regard it as entirely adequate and I shall give my reasons therefor. But South Africa has already come so close to disaster that it is necessary for us on this side of the House to support this Bill even though we feel it is inadequate in certain respects. It is not only the Bill which I regard as being inadequate; the entire maritime outlook and legislation of the Government are outmoded and inadequate. The Minister will remember that I have pleaded with him from time to time to extend our territorial waters and to create fishery conservation zones. All this is apposite in the light of the objects of this Bill. I have also asked the Minister to give consideration to extending our territorial waters and our fishery zones to cover the continental shelf. In the legislation of other countries dealing with oil pollution they have gone so far in some cases as to cover oil exploration and exploitation on the continental shelf around their coasts. As far as South Africa is concerned, the continental shelf extends in certain places up to 70 miles from the shore and in others to a minimum of 30 miles. I believe this is something to which the hon. the Minister will have to give consideration.

Let me now explain why I consider this Bill to be inadequate in certain respects. I regard it to be inadequate, first of all, because its operation will be limited to a very limited area of sea as a whole, namely, only to territorial zone and fishing zones. These zones include the sea within 12 miles from our coast. The hon. member for South Coast has already pointed out that much of the tanker traffic is to the seaward of both our territorial waters and our fishing zone. Another omission I consider is the absence of a provision for an oil record book and the absence of the creation of a patrol service structure. No provision is made for a coast-guard service. The Minister knows that we are already suffering as a result of insufficient patrol vessels. A further omission is the fact that our ships are not prohibited from discharging their oil in other waters. Such a provision is to be found in the legislation of some countries in terms of which those countries are empowered to take precautionary steps against ships of other countries in respect of their own territorial waters and fishing zones, and the continental shelf in some cases, while very often, stringent provisions are made regarding the discharge of oil by their own ships in the high seas. Therefore, this is something which I recommend to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. Then there is an absence of any insistence in this Bill with regard to the provision of reception facilities in our ports. This is very important. Emphasis is laid in legislation in other countries on the creation of reception facilities for not only tankers but also for other merchantmen and even for warships in the ports of those particular countries. These reception facilities naturally are for used oil and bilges. South Africa is not a signatory to any international convention or any bilateral agreement so far as I know. The next international conference is to be held in 1972 and I hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to sending representatives to that conference which will deal with oil pollution and to see that we sign the convention and that we subsequently ratify it.

I have said that I believe that we should extend our territorial waters, our fishery zone and that we should lay claim to our continental shelf. Let us look at some of the developments in other parts of the world. This oil pollution problem is not new. It did not only occur since the end of the Second World War. The first Oil Pollution Act that I have been able to find was in the United States in 1926. In 1926, in addition there was a preliminary conference of experts held in Washington consisting of the representatives of 14 states to examine technical problems raised by pollution of water by ships. After that conference, a draft convention was drawn up and recorded that the Governments that attended that conference should take the necessary measures to ensure that warships should take all possible steps to prevent pollution by oil and that merchant vessels should take all reasonable precautions. This matter therefore has a long history. We in South Africa introduced legislation in 1921 which was actually in the form of a regulation under legislation introduced in 1916 by Act 22 of 1916. We in 1921, provided by regulation for the prohibition of the discharge of oil into any of our harbours and the pumping out and the cleaning of tanks and bilges by oil burning and oil carrying vessels inside our harbours. That was a very sensible provision that we made at the time. Since then it seems that successive governments have not taken any steps to deal with oil pollution as such.

Internationally, after the various proposals were made in America the biggest step that has been taken in recent years was that in 1952 a committee was set up to consider practical steps to prevent oil pollution arising around the coasts of Great Britain. This was a British committee set up under the chairmanship of a Dr. Faulkner. Its chief proposals are very interesting. First of all they proposed the extension of prohibited zones. They also laid down a seafarer's code of conduct. Then they classified the ill effects of soil pollution which are apposite to our situation in South Africa today. They classified them as being the spoiling of beaches, destruction and injury to sea birds, fouling of boats, fishing gear and quays, damage to shell fish and larvae and the risk of fire in harbours and enclosed waters. I gather that it was the risk of fire more than anything else that was responsible for the introduction of our regulation in 1921. This committee in 1952 very greatly assisted an international conference that was held in 1954, i.e. the Internation Conference for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil that was held in London. This conference for the first time established defined international prohibited zones on the high seas, in addition, of course, to having prohibited zones in the territorial waters and the harbours of the contracting parties. It called on all member countries, the contracting parties, to pass municipal legislation making it an offence for practically all ships registered in the name of the respective countries, to discharge persistent oil, that is to say crude oil or fuel oil, into defined international prohibited zones. It went further and called upon contracting states to ensure that at all their ports there were facilities to deal with oil waste. These are the reception facilities to which I have already referred. They recommended that each ship should carry an oil record book another facility to which I have referred. That oil record book of each ship visiting a port, should be available for inspection by the Port authorities of each of the contracting states. This Convention actually remained an incomplete answer to the problem as only 16 of the stales which attended that conference had ratified these arrangements by 1962. A further international conference was held in Copenhagen in 1959 and it is interesting that that conference recommended that all countries and the International Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, or IMCO, as it is called, should, as a matter of urgency, make arrangements for an international conference to achieve total avoidance of the discharge of oil into the sea. As far as I can see, this was the first reference to the “total avoidance of discharge of oil into the sea”, and it is very important. The conference also urged the extension of prohibited zones.

Then we come to the historic Geneva Conference on the sea of 1958. Only a small section of the convention drawn up after that conference actually refers to oil pollution. In that section it says that every state should draw up regulations to prevent sea pollution by oil, whether from ships or pipelines, or as a result of the exploitation or exploration of the seabed and the subsoil of the sea. Here we see that an innovation has been introduced. In 1962 IMCO held a large and very successful conference which was attended by 41 delegates. That meeting agreed that the discharge of any oily waste by ships into the open sea would henceforth be prohibited. I mention this particularly in view of the fact that we have such a limited prohibited area. The prohibited area to which I now refer and which was approved by that conference, included the whole of the North Sea, the Baltic, large portions of the Atlantic and an area within 100 miles of the Mediterranean Sea. A ship was only permitted to discharge into the sea if there were no reception facilities available at either end of the voyage, in which case the Master, if he discharged his oil into the sea, was immediately to report that fact upon his return to port. It is very significant, I think, that this conference concluded that while a date could not be fixed for the complete avoidance of the discharge of persistent oil into the sea, it should be observed from the earliest practicable date. In other words, yet another conference, the most recent one, I think to deal with this matter has said that the aim and object has been to bring about the total avoidance of the discharge of oil into the sea, even into the high seas. In the United Kingdom the Oil and Navigable Waters Act was passed in 1955 and was subsequently amended in 1963. That Act now applies to all vessels in the prohibited area, and to British vessels anywhere, even on the high seas.

As regards oil records, there are certain problem ships. These problem ships, as the hon. member for South Coast said, are very often ships which sail under flags of convenience. They do not observe the law or the spirit of international co-operation. They clean their tanks at sea and they do not observe such methods as the load-on- top method.

The hon. member for South Coast has referred to oil slicks in mid ocean. We have only to read the book by Thor Heyerdahl to see that he confirms that there are large oil slicks in most of the oceans in the world where he has sailed. The worst offenders are unquestionably these ships sailing under flags of convenience. In July, 1970, Liberia was responsible as the registered owner for 19 million tons of shipping, or 22 per cent of the total world tanker shipping. Panama and Honduras have three to four million tons of shipping of other nationals but registered under their flags of convenience. Liberia did not ratify the international agreement until 1962 although the conference was held in 1954. Even when it did in fact ratify, it reserved its position in some respects.

I think we should decide in South Africa what records should be kept in ships visiting South African ports. I believe that the records on which we should insist should be complete records of the movement of all oil on board a ship from loading to discharge, including the discharge at sea of dirty ballast. The purpose would be to enable the authorities to ensure that oil or oily residue is properly disposed of and not simply discharged at sea which too often is the tendency. Discharges are not accidental. They are deliberate. The right of innocent passage through territorial waters and through fishery zones is undisputed in international law. But it does not confer on those merchant men who are availing themselves of this right of innocent passage, the right to pollute those waters. I believe therefore that the penalties in legislation such as ours should be draconian in their severity.

In conclusion I should like to say a few words as to why I support these very stiff penalties in this legislation. First of all, we are legislating for maximum fines and not for minimum fines. Secondly, the discharge of oil is a conscious decision to injure marine environment or else, result from complete negligence on the part of the ship’s captain. Thirdly, if there was the certainty of detection, obviously this would be the strongest deterrent. But it is very difficult, as the hon. the Minister will know, to patrol effectively a large area of sea around our coast constituting the territorial sea and the fishery zone covering, I imagine, something like 5 000 miles of coast 12 miles wide,

Fourthly, accidental spillage of oil by the merchant ships of the world is undoubtedly on the increase and can be expected further to increase. Is addition to the accidental spillage as a result of disasters of one kind or another, there is the question of exploitation of the sea bed and the sub-soil of the sea which in turn leads to leakages of oil. Therefore, we must anticipate that in future there will be an increase in accidental spillage. Therefore, deliberate discharge must be most severely discouraged. Lastly, I think there is another good reason, namely that oceanologists and other scientists of one kind or another look to a Government to see what legislation that Government is prepared to produce to show an understanding and an appreciation of the value of the oceanic resources of that particular state to the national economy of that state.

In Canada they have a contingency plan drawn up by the Minister of Transport. I will subsequently make this plan available to the hon. the Minister. The main point that they make is that when there is a pollution, the first thing to do is to try to recover the oil from the ship in distress. The second necessity according to the contingency plan is the recovery of oil from the sea after it has been discharged from the vessel. The third method of fighting pollution is the cleansing of the shoreline and of the beaches. These are steps that have to be taken. The steps are also mentioned in the report of the ad hoc committee issued by Prof. Mallory at the end of 1968. I commend them to the hon. the Minister. In addition, I express the hope that all the other recommendations advanced by that ad hoc committee some years ago, have in fact been put into effective operation by the hon. the Minister and his department.

With these words and with the understanding that this Bill is likely to be amended in the light of our experience and on the basis that while on this side of the House welcome it, there nevertheless are inadequacies in the legislation, we give this Bill our full support

In this Bill we are dealing with a measure to exercise control over a branch of a very big international problem. Pollution is becoming a big international problem. The literature in connection with the pollution of the air and the sea is increasing in volume. Hardly any medical or scientific congress take place any more in which pollution of the air or sea is not a theme of discussion. The latest focussing of this problem of pollution must, I think, be sought in the decision of the American Senate not to approve of the continuation of the building programme for the supersonic jets. If one looks for the reasons one finds that one of the main arguments for their decision was that these jets would leave gases and smoke in the uppermost layers of air which would continue to bang there and affect the climate.

Just as there is pollution of the air, there is also pollution of the sea to an ever increasing extent, so much so that large areas have already been termed oceanic deserts, where no marine life can be found any more. Thus there are some of the Great Lakes in North America, around the big cities such as Chicago, which have already been polluted to such an extent that there is absolutely nothing left of the erstwhile abundance of water life. This problem of pollution is therefore an international problem that increasingly demands the attention of the thinking world. One only has to read this book, which is written in a very popular vein, the “Doomsday Book” by Taylor—and similarly one could read many others…

Does it deal with the Nationalist Party’s future?

No, I am speaking about scientific matters now. You can only talk about fish. If one reads this book and other scientific works in connection with this pollution of the air and sea, one sleeps very restlessly because the conclusions one can draw from this could, in fact, be stated as follows: That man has the ability to survive catastrophes. Man has shown that he can survive catastrophes, but the question we must begin asking ourselves these days is whether man will be able to survive the problem situation and the catastrophe that must follow upon the tremendous momentum that pollution of the air and sea is gaining. This is a question to which science has not yet been able to give any reply. Because no scientific method exists at present for the combating of oil pollution. All the scientific methods that might be employed to counteract oil pollution have adverse consequences in turn.

Sir, apparently no scientific method exists at present for counteracting oil pollution. In looking for a moment at the question of pollution, one must begin with man himself. I think there are three obvious reasons why this problem of pollution is becoming more and more pronounced, why this problem is, to an increasing extent, forcing itself upon modern-day society and why it compels us to say that it can create a catastrophe that man will not be able to surmount in the future. I think that three pronounced human characteristics are involved here. The first is that here we are dealing with crisis of values. The ships plying the oceans are transporting oil for material gain. I do not think that any single man on those ships sailing past our coasts here ever thinks of anything but the rewards or the material gain that can be obtained from that oil.

Consequently one gets this baffling recklessness in the face of pollution of the sea by the discharging of oil, the negligence in connection with taking steps against the overloading of ships and the poor navigation methods that are applied, etc. This all forms the underlying reason for sea disasters and ships that run aground. The question we must ask is this: How must we now live in order to stay alive? In the second place I think that we are dealing here with a clash between what technology has created and its inability to cope with what it has brought forth. This compels me to say that the products of technology—the removal of the oil from the earth, the transportation of that oil in great bulk in tankers and the pollution that can develop as a result of a ship sinking, cannot be combated by a contra-technological achievement. That is where the present- day crisis in connection with the pollution of the sea lies. In the third place we live in a crisis of responsibility, and I want to quote to you, Sir, what Taylor says in this connection. It is really quite informative—

Sir, we sit here with a tremendous problem for which human understanding with all its technological progress and scientific achievements has not yet, as far as the pollution of the sea by oil is concerned, found a remedy, a means of prevention, a solution. We must take into consideration that only 2 per cent of the oil, going round the Cape from the East to the West, is destined for South Africa, while 26 per cent of the world’s transportation of oil from the East to the West goes via the Cape sea route. Over and above other considerations, this indicates to us again the amazing strategic position of the Cape. If we drive to Cape Town harbour in the evenings, we can see how many ships lie there waiting to be served. We are then impressed by the tremendous shipping traffic—and these are only the ships we can see—along our South African coast. If we were to calculate the shipping traffic we would find that about 12 ships, each of 70 000 tons, are somewhere along the Cape coast at any given moment.

I do not want to mention any additional figures, because I think that these figures give us an indication of the tremendous amount of oil that is transported daily in an unbroken chain along our Cape coast. It has been calculated statistically that about one million tons are poured into the sea annually. This figure of one million tons cannot simply be ignored. Thousands of tons of motor oil are taken from the land to the sea, into which the oil flows annually. Thirteen million tons of petrol, power paraffin, diesel oil and related products, which evaporate into the air, again settle to earth and also eventually end up in the sea. These 13 million tons represent only petrol, diesel oil and power paraffin. There are already more than half a million pollution elements in the sea. The most important of those half million pollution elements is oil, the most dangerous, the most harmful and the most difficult to combat.

It is difficult to combat oil pollution because oil floats on the sea. Oil is not easily soluble and it therefore has to lie there. Very few natural processes decompose oil. Oil is chiefly decomposed by bacteria. Oil has an influence on the evaporation of water. We can listen to what Bruce Dalling and the Rio yachtsmen had to say, and to what the findings were of an expedition that recently conducted a deep-sea investigation from Long Island in the United States. They found that thousands of square miles of oil was drifting around on the ocean. We can then ask ourselves, and we are entitled to do so, what the position would be in 50 years' time if the present rate of pollution continues? What effect is it going to have over a period of about 50 years on the evaporation of water from the sea? As you know, we are dependent upon evaporation for our rainfall. It must have a disrupting effect on our climate.

Oil that drifts on the water reduces the permeation and penetration capability of light and air in deep water, and it must eventually have an effect on the sea life and on deep-sea life in particular. It is a scientific fact, and a fact worth knowing, that crude oil is a compound of many elements of which the hydro-carbonates are extremely poisonous to man and to other living organisms.

If we make an attempt at dissolving this when such a disaster takes place we find, as in the case of the Torrey Canyon, where solvents were used that the results did more damage and were more deadly than the oil itself. We are therefore saddled with a very difficult problem. Mr. Max Blumer of the Woodshole Oceanographic Institution claims that the long-term disadvantages and harmful effects of oil and oil pollution were tremendously greater than the short-term effects, as we would have seen recently with the Wafra episode. A lot of birds would die, people would not be able to swim, there would be a certain amount of inconvenience, the marine life in the immediate vicinity would die and it would probably not have an effect on the fish life, but it would have an effect on the bird life, ft would, however, affect fish life in one respect. There are many kinds of migratory fish in the ocean which are attuned to scent as far as migrating and obtaining food are concerned, They depend on the smell of the plankton.

Oil is an element that reduces the sense of smell, and if it drifts on the water it is apt to be extremely deceptive as far as those migratory fish are concerned, depending as they do for direction and their food sources on smell and on their olfactory organs. The long-term effects could be much more harmful than the short-term ones. We also know that oil sinks very slowly. Neither do we know, when a ship has sunk and is lying at the bottom of the ocean, and in the course of time its oil gushes out, whether that oil will remain there static. We do not know this yet. We therefore do not know, for example, what effect the Wafra’s oil can still have. We know, however, that where oil lies or moves it takes a very long time before it is decomposed by bacteria. As our oil sources on the land are exhausted, man will have to turn increasingly to the ocean to look for his sources of oil.

What would now happen, half a century from now, when our sources of oil on land are exhausted and man must turn to the ocean where tremendously rich sources of oil still lie; in fact, the richest of un-exploited oil sources, according to claims? I am just mentioning these things to indicate briefly what a tremendous, difficult and scientifically complex problem we are faced with. Now this Bill has been brought along as a humble endeavour to exercise control, and to do whatever is possible by way of legislation to exercise control, as far as it is within our power to do so, over the spilling of oil from ships. I still foresee the day when we shall have to come with amending legislation, as the problem gets bigger and bigger, legislation that will grant many more powers to the State.

The hon. member for Simonstown spoke of the extension of our territorial waters. I want to tell the hon. member that it is not as easy as he thinks. There are conventions to which a country must belong before it can extent its territorial waters. We do not belong to those conventions and therefore it would be extremely difficult for us to do that. We have a few conventions, for example the International Convention for the prevention of Marine Pollution by Oil, which was inaugurated in 1954 and amended in 1962. Then we have the convention of 1969, the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, which endeavoured to obtain more efficient control. But thus far everything is still a superficial scratching around.

I now want to conclude by saying that this Bill, as I see it, is a courageous but modest effort to do what we now have to do in the light of what we now know. I want to conclude with a few words by Dr. Jack Pearce. He is a marine biologist at the Stony Brooke Laboratory on Long Island. He said: “Science cannot solve this problem”. At this juncture I also have to say that science cannot yet solve this problem. In the light of what we know we shall simply have to chart our course. I want to congratulate the Minister on this courageous effort of his in at least making a start, by means of this legislation, in solving a problem that could prove to be a catastrophe in the future, as far as we are concerned, as regards the beautiful coasts of our dear and lovely land.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the arguments of my colleagues from South Coast and Simons town, and I shall be quite brief. We on this side of the House support this Bill, because we feel it is a necessary Bill. It is overdue. Indeed, it is an urgent measure for which we have long pleaded and about which we have long been concerned. In supporting this Bill, we cannot forbear to say that we are nevertheless disappointed. We are disappointed at the inadequacy and the comparative shortsightedness of the measures as here proposed, because we feel they do not reach into the heart or embrace the full extent of the problem with which we are faced.

The hon. member for Carletonville has made a thoughtful and well-documented speech, and I will not cover the same ground that he has, except possibly to try modestly to add yet a further dimension to what he has said. We live in an age where populations are increasing rapidly, and where the various services required by those populations are increasing even more rapidly. Amongst the requirements which are increasing most rapidly of all, is energy. Energy at present rates has a doubling time, at 7 per cent, of 10 years. That is to say, if growth takes place at 7 per cent, our energy requirements are doubled every 10 years. If the growth is at 10 per cent, our requirements double in seven years. This means that quite possibly within something between seven and

10 years we and many other countries will require twice as much energy, and therefore twice as much oil as we now require. It means that in this comparatively brief period the amount of oil being carried about the seas of the world will double. It will double in less than 10 years and redouble in another seven to 10 years after that, and so on. The magnitude of this problem needs to be grasped in order that we should see precisely what is the urgency and what severity is needed in order to stop the abuses which are now taking place.

The first inadequacy in this Bill as I see it is that it deals with oil alone. Now, Sir, oil is not the only contaminant of our seas. One thinks, for example, of the growing quantities of chemicals and other corrosive substances which are being carried in ships around the world. There are foul discharges of various kinds from ships as they ply the sea lanes. Poisonous residue is cast off and one can think in addition of such things as radio activity. In this connection it is well to remember that we are advancing into an age where a number of ships is going to be nuclear propelled. They themselves will be capable of discharging spent fuels which will be highly radioactive. All these things have to be taken into account. My point is that oil is not the only contaminant. A great deal more will have to be brought within the ambit of legislation aimed at securing our coast line from pollution.

A second deficiency in this Bill is what I might describe as the principle of reciprocity. We in South Africa are in a difficult position in this respect in that we are not able to become members of certain international conventions. We have difficulties with certain sections of our coast line which we administer, difficulty in securing international recognition of our role in respect of those portions of the coast line. Furthermore, we are experiencing difficulty in that our prohibited area, our territorial limits, are relatively narrow while we would not easily secure international recognition should we attempt to broaden our jurisdiction over the waters around our coasts. For all these reasons it is necessary if we wish to broaden the area of our control, the area of safety against pollution, around our coast that we should achieve the maximum degree of international co-operation. One way of doing this is, as the hon. member for Simonstown has suggested, by prohibiting our own ships from discharging oil in other waters. If such a step is taken and South African ships wherever they sail are prohibited from discharging pollutants into other waters, either in international or other territorial waters, we will have established a strong moral case to require of other countries that they too should respect our territorial waters and international waters off our coast.

I want to make one last point. The Bill does give the Minister power to take steps of various kinds. For example, in terms of clause 3 he may order the unloading of ships, and masters to move their ships from place to place. One is a little alarmed at the thought that these powers may be tittle more than pious hopes. The fact is that these ships are not on land, where the Police can give effect to the Minister's will. The question is, how will the Minister enforce his will to make this legislation effective? It is all very well to say that the Minister has powers to do this, that or the other. When these ships are sailing five, six or ten miles off our coast the Minister may have very good and strong intentions but he is faced with the problem of how to enforce those intentions. Clause 6 provides that the Minister may delegate to any person any of the powers being conferred upon him. No doubt he shall have to delegate these powers to people who are able to take some effective action, we hope, against ships well off our coastline. He may also establish such bodies as he may deem necessary to assist him in carrying out the provisions of this Act. It is here that the rub lies. One is aware that in certain other countries there is a coastguard with its own patrol ships, aeroplanes and its own Police force which can enforce the will of the Minister of State responsible for patrolling the coastline. This hon. Minister has the same good intentions as Ministers of other countries because he too wishes to protect our coastline against pollution. But what means has he at his disposal? He must depend firstly on the goodwill of his colleagues, namely the Minister of Transport for the use of tugs, and the Minister of Defence for the use of naval ships or aircraft. But has he at his demand, ready for urgent use, the ships and patrol vehicles necessary to enforce his own will? Or does he depend entirely on the good graces of his colleagues? We sympathize with the hon. the Minister in this problem. We do not criticize him. He quite clearly has not got a coastguard at his disposal. I will then say that in the initial phase, if this Bill is to have any meaning at all, if it is to be effective at all and if we mean what we say in this Bill, the hon. the Minister must without ado make such interdepartmental arrangements with his colleagues as will ensure that he has constant observation of the ships around our coasts, that he has constant observation of pollution such as may occur and that this information can be swiftly signalled to a central point where it can be evaluated and where quick action can be taken to enforce the powers of the Minister as described in clause 3. Unless he has such arrangements with his colleagues and unless he can assure the House, as I hope he will do this evening, that such arrangements are being made, this Bill is valueless and not worth the paper it is printed on. I hope that at a later stage, as the growth over the next ten years which I have described takes place, namely the doubling effect, the hon. the Minister will give serious thought to establishing an adequate patrol service under his own command so that he is not dependent on the exigencies of other services to enforce the most important powers which he purports to take under this Bill. I say “purports”, for he has not taken them unless he has provided for himself a means to enforce these powers to make his will effective.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of the hon. members who took part in this debate, elaborated on the importance of and necessity for this measure. Consequently it is not necessary for me to comment in that regard. However, I do want to comment on a few specific matters that were mentioned. It is also interesting to note that when we agree on a measure, we are inclined to devote a great deal of time to telling one another to what extent we agree. The only criticism that was expressed on the opposite side of the House, was that the measure did not go far enough, that there were certain shortcomings, and so forth. I shall deal with them presently.

I want to agree with the hon. member for South Coast where he said that this measure or no matter what measure in the world and what means we might employ with the money at our disposal, would not prevent pollution taking place in the world from time to time. On a previous occasion, when the Wafra incident was under discussion, I said that we did not have the necessary means for preventing pollution to a greater or lesser extent. I was criticized for saying that. But it is true. It is undoubtedly true that if a tanker laden with oil runs ashore and breaks up somewhere along the South African coastline and if not even the most powerful tugs in the world can pull it off the rocks, pollution will take place. In fact, we have already had such pollution. There is nothing on earth that will prevent pollution from taking place. All we can do, is to restrict to the minimum such pollution as may take place, I think that we have reached unanimity in that regard, and that is why it would be wrong to create the impression that if we took certain measures, there would never be any pollution on the South African coast. In that respect I must agree with the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast, in contrast with the hon. member for Simonstown, also referred to the fact that the Wafra incident had been disposed of quite successfully. He expressed his appreciation to those officials who had sacrificed so much time and who had worked so hard in order to dispose of the matter so successfully. However, the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Simonstown in this House is really so unpleasant that one even feels bad about it sometimes. If he cannot engage in unsavoury scandal-mongering here, he always wants to disparage the other side. The hon. member is a younger member than I am, and if I could give him a piece of advice, this would be my advice to him: If one grows up, one does so as a result of one’s own strength and one’s own ability. One does not grow up by continually trying to disparage other people. If those are the means one employs in order to grow up, one will never attain one’s objective, for one’s own people will reject one. In fact, many of that hon. member’s own people are doing so already.

Sir, may I just say that at the time of the Wafra incident tremendous sacrifices were made on the part of officials of my department, and one is grateful for that. Moreover, the matter was disposed of successfully because the officials had done their work in conducting negotiations in respect of tugs, etc. The pollution which did take place, was restricted to a minimum, for the very reason that the department had made preparations for combating it. What happened? Over the Easter weekend, only a few weeks after the shipwreck, the beaches were opened up again and holiday-makers could go there. It was possible for people to avail themselves of the facilities along that coastline as though nothing had ever happened there. Now I want to put this question to hon. members opposite, who want to level criticism and disparage on every possible occasion: Did that state of affairs develop by itself, or were those beaches opened up as a result of efforts made by officials of my department, and also because of the fact that they had the means at their disposal and were prepared for taking the necessary steps? hon. members who do not live in that vicinity and who were therefore not involved in the matter, are welcome to go on criticizing, but I know that the people living in that part of our country which was in fact affected, have nothing but appreciation for what was done there.

The hon. member for South Coast said that information had to be obtained. He said that the officers concerned with this matter should not only carry out inspections during office hours so as to see whether there was any pollution here and there, but that they had to be on their toes and that they had to keep an eye on the situation day in and day out, over weekends as well, and make reports whenever anything happened. Then the hon. member asked how this could be done. I should like to refer the hon. member to an information document issued by my Department of Industries under the title “Oil Pollution on Beaches along the Natal Coast: Code of Practice for the Clearance of Oil from Beaches”. In that document provision is being made inter alia for the establishment of an action committee and operational control centres, to which I referred on a previous occasion. The hon. member asked me what bodies were going to take action in the event of pollution of the sea. I want to tell the hon. member that we can discuss that at the Committee Stage. At this stage I just want to say that this is going to be the basis on which we are going to work. These action committees, which are already in existence, and the operational control centres which we have in Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and Walvis Bay, and perhaps at other places as well, will serve as the basis, but I do not want to suggest here that these are the only bodies to which I am going to delegate powers for the purpose of doing work in this regard. It may happen that in the course of time, and according to what we may decide now as to the powers we have at the moment, we may take other measures. Furthermore, I just want to remind the hon. member that in addition to these there is also a technical committee, which was in fact established for the purpose of maintaining closer co-operation with the oil companies in order that it may investigate the technical aspect and carry out research in that regard. But in this document which I have in my hand, under the heading “Port Captains", the following is stated—

My sole purpose in reading this is to show the hon. member that there are means which we have already prescribed by way of a code and in accordance with which steps must to be taken, in this case by the port captains, when they receive information about ships experiencing difficulties.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of this. I participated in that arrangement, and the first time that it was put into use it was in the port captain’s office that the communication broke down. Is the hon. the Minister aware of that? It broke down at that very point.

No, I am not aware of that, but that is a personal weakness, which is not necessarily a weakness in the system we should pursue. If the hon. member has any criticism to offer on this procedure as forming part of the procedure at large, he should rather criticize the procedure and not the weakness which came into play as a result of the human element. The same document makes provision for that later on, in paragraph 9 (3)—

And then all the information is furnished as to how contact is to be made with the department.

The hon. member also referred to the minor leakages and the major leakages. Now, the major leakages, as we see the matter, are those leakages which result when a ship runs ashore or when a ship runs into difficulties, or when it develops engine trouble or is damaged at sea and when that possibility of a disaster may arise. Then there are the minor leakages to which we have been referring, and in regard to which we are of the opinion that the local authorities should in the first place be responsible for dealing with them. While I am on my feet and discussing this matter, I think it would be proper for us to exchange a few views in this regard. I am inclined to think that the Government should take responsibility for the major forms of pollution, the major incidents which I defined a moment ago. But it also goes without saying that in cases where there is difference of opinion as to whether the incident is a minor incident or a major one, the Government should perhaps lend a helping hand and grant assistance. My personal view is that in cases where a lesser form of pollution takes place in a local community, it is in the first place the task of the local authority to attend to it. But, on the other hand, we also realize that widespread pollution is the responsibility of the Department of Industries, and we accept that responsibility. Suppose something happens at a place such as Port Shepstone; they have a form of pollution there and they themselves do not know where the oil came from. It is oil which simply appears on the sea, but it is a form of pollution which is so extensive that it is too great a task for Port Shepstone as a local authority to deal with, or they may think that it is too great a task; in such a case they should get in touch with the Department of Industries. [Interjection.] If the hon. member does not want to co-operate with me, we shall probably not get very far. But this is how I should like to see it. The local authorities should also keep an eye on the situation and should lake steps in cases where pollution has taken place to a lesser extent; but when it starts getting more extensive, they should get into touch with the Department of Industries, and we shall grant the necessary assistance if it is justified.

Incidentally, the hon. member referred to the definition of the word “ship”. We considered changing the word “ship” in the definition clause to “vessel”. At the moment it is defined as follows in the Afrikaans text—

In the English text it reads as follows—

It would seem that the direct translation of “vessel” is “vaartuig”. We could perhaps use in English the word “vessel” and not “ship” and then we could use in Afrikaans the word “vaartuig” and not “skip”. But we preferred to use the word “ship” in English and the word “skip” in Afrikaans and to give a definition of it, which, to my mind, is adequate in every respect. Nevertheless, if the hon. member thinks that the definition is wrong, we may discuss it further at the Committee Stage,

The hon. member referred to installations by saying that in his view installations should also come under the control of this Act. I just want to tell him that we did consider that, but for the present it is very problematical, in the light of the information we have and the negotiations we have been conducting up to now, whether we should go so far as to bring installations under the control of the Act, because “installation” is such a wide concept. For instance, it includes the drills at sea which are drilling for oil, as well as all the various installations in the ports.

Include everything.

Sir, I cannot merely make provision in the Bill for a concept as wide as “installations”; it requires lengthy negotiations with various other Government departments, and for the present we deemed it fit not to make provision for installations in the Bill. The hon. member may rest assured as regards installations such as the discharging place in the sea off Durban. We do have other means of control over that class of installation, and there is actually no danger of a lack of control as far as these installations are concerned.

Sir, the hon. member for South Coast also said that ships had to be apprehended and refused permission to enter our harbours. He gave me the impression that what he had in mind in this regard, was ships on the sea, without taking into account the fact that this legislation only dealt with ships within a distance of 12 miles from the coast. Unfortunately this is the case; it would have been more effective if it had been wider in scope, and in a moment I shall reply to what the hon. member for Simonstown said in this regard, but at the moment it is restricted to 12 miles. I have already read from the code how we are trying to transmit information in cases where dangerous situations are created. I want to point out to the hon. member that, especially in clause 6, provision is being made for the Minister to appoint any person to investigate possible pollution by a ship. The members of the South African Police and of the police force of the Railways will in any case, without having to obtain the necessary authorization from the Minister, have the right to go on board any ship and to see whether there is any danger of pollution and whether action should be taken.

Then the hon. member, and other hon. members as well, wanted to know how we were going to handle the matter if I did not have the necessary means at my disposal. The hon. member for Von Brandis went so far as to say that the Bill was not worth the paper on which it was printed if I did not have patrol boats, aircraft, etc. Sir, I do not have them. I think it is actually a little presumptions and silly to expect South Africa, with its extensive coastline, to introduce—as countries such as the United States of America, England and the European countries have done—a coast patrol service, which is going to cost millions and millions of rands to acquire and more millions and millions of rands per year to maintain. I think it is a little premature to be thinking along these lines at this stage. We should learn to walk before we try to fly. Consequently it is simply not practical politics to put forward such suggestions. I should like to say that in this regard we have the closest cooperation of the Department of Transport and especially with the Department of Defence. Ever since a start was made with the fight against the pollution of the sea, we have always obtained the closest co-operation from the Navy and the Air Force. We have always been assisted by them, whenever it was necessary in any way. Therefore hon. members on that side of the House really need not be concerned about our not having the services and the facilities of those departments at our disposal when we may require them in future.

The “flags of convenience”, of which mention was made, are really not a matter which we can settle in this House. It is a matter which ought to be settled on the international level. In fact, I must say that South Africa has already played its part in regard to this matter on such occasions as it was possible for it to do so. At inter alia the International Conference in Rome, in 1968, South Africa took part in the discussion of this matter. I agree with the hon. member for South Coast and the other hon. members who spoke about the problem of the so-called “flags of convenience", but it is a matter about which we cannot do anything by discussing it in this House.

The hon. member for Swellendam emphasized, as I did too, that all the ships in the world and all the preparations in the world could not prevent this danger entirely, and that we merely had to hope that we would be able to restrict it to a minimum.

The hon. member for Simonstown said, amongst other things, that he was of the opinion that those who salvaged ships should also be made subject to the provisions of this legislation. This is another matter which we considered. The hon. member will agree with me—or rather, any sensible person will agree with me, for I do not think that that hon. member will ever agree with me—that if the salvage company were also made subject to the stringent provisions of this legislation, we would not obtain its assistance. Why would such a salvage company expose itself to these problems if the provisions and fines of this legislation were also made applicable to it? Consequently it would do much more harm than good, and in our opinion it is not right that that should be done.

The hon. member for Simonstown once again ventured to refer here to international conventions. Once again it is a case of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread. His more senior colleague here in the front bench, did not refer to the matter, and rightly so. I am not going to discuss it either. I do not think that it would in any way be conducive to our case to make an analysis now of what the problems and the circumstances are as a result of which we are not a member of these conventions. The hard fact of the matter is that we are not a member of these conventions. Because of that we stand to gain nothing by providing in this legislation today that this prohibited area, as it is called in this Bill, should extend 20 or 50 nr 100 miles out to sea, for it will not be recognized by the rest of the world. Internationally it is unacceptable. But the 12-mile limit, i.e. six miles in respect of territorial waters and six miles in respect of the fishing zone and the sea between the high and low-water marks, is the area in respect of which this legislation is being made applicable. That is the area which is acceptable to the vest of the world. What point will there be in our providing that this legislation will be applicable to a larger area if it does not mean anything to The rest of the world and if they do not accept it? As I have already said, I am not keen to discuss the membership of the international conventions.

As far as the oil record book is concerned, I may just say that there is no point in our incorporating it in this legislation. This will be of no use, for even if it were incorporated in the legislation, we would not be able to enforce it, because we are not a member of the 1954 Convention. Therefore, because we are not a member of that convention concerning the pollution of the sea, it would be pointless if it were mentioned in this legislation. Although we have now had a lengthy discussion on a topic on which we agree, I may say that it has definitely had its advantages. We all trust that with this weapon in our hands, we shall be able to combat more effectively the danger of pollution, which the hon. member for Carletonville in particular depicted so impressively.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time,

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill he now read a Second Time.

This Bill which, as will be seen, is a short and simple one, is directly related to the new process for the enrichment of uranium which has been developed in South Africa and which has already been announced. Because the Government regards it as a matter of national importance that the few proposed amendments to the law should still be passed this year, I have made available to members of the mining groups on both sides of the House, a memorandum on the matter with which this Bill deals.

As these hon. members know, the crux of the matter is that, whereas hardly any applications for patents in regard to the enrichment of uranium in South Africa were submitted prior to the announcement of our breakthrough in the field of uranium enrichment (isotope isolation), the picture has changed drastically since in the sense that foreign concerns have been trying to obtain patent protection in the field of uranium enrichment in the Republic. It is evident that this is the beginning and that more applications may be submitted in an attempt to get a clue to the South African process. It is obvious that absolute secrecy in respect of our own, unique South African process is essential, but it will be clear to hon. members that if in terms of the existing statutory provisions the Atomic Energy Board is to protect its rights in respect of the South African process by way of lodging motivated objections to patent applications by local or foreign concerns, it may in the course of time be possible for such concerns to discover through these objections what the process is that South Africa has developed, even if they only do so by way of elimination.

The Government wants to try to prevent something like that at all costs, and as it is accepted international practice to place such an important strategical activity as uranium enrichment completely under State control, it is now being expressly provided that no one other than the Atomic Energy Board shall be granted any patent which relates to or can be applied in connection with the enrichment of source material or special nuclear material, and that if a patent is granted contrary to the provisions, such patent shall be of no force and effect. The Registrar of Patents will refer patent applications to the Board and if the Board decides that a patent for which application has been lodged relates to uranium enrichment or can be so applied, the said Registrar shall thereupon refuse the application. I may just inform the House that these arrangements have already been made with the Registrar of Patents and that we are sure they will work well in practice. In order to obviate any possible litigation in the course of which the Atomic Energy Board may be forced to reveal information which it wants to keep secret, it is being provided that the decision of the Board shall he final This means, in other words, that there will be no appeal. The provisions to which I have just referred are those in clause 2 of the Bill.

In clause 5 the main principle is being extended for the sake of uniformity so as to apply also to the special kind of investigation for which provision is made in section 28 of the principal Act, although it is perhaps not of great practical importance here. The rest of the clauses, i.e. clauses 1, 3 and 4, merely contain consequential amendments.

I want to sum up by saying that the breakthrough made In this country in the field of uranium enrichment, not only through the endeavours of our scientists, but also by means of the taxpayers’ money, holds nut the possibility and the promise that the Republic will in due course be able to earn foreign exchange by selling enriched uranium as well as being able to generate cheaper electric power when there is a change-over to nuclear power stations. Therefore it is not only our right, but also our duty, to try to protect our interests in the way provided for in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House see the necessity for this Bill. We agree with the Minister that a Bill of this nature is necessary especially where it deals with materials such as uranium. We also see the necessity for the security of the findings and the secrecy thereof. However, I think there are one or two points which must be probed further.

This Bill provides that from now on all research that is done on the enrichment of uranium will have to be done through agents of the Atomic Energy Board.

That is the position today.

This means that any university or mining house that has a research project that has to do with the enrichment of uranium becomes an agent of the Atomic Energy Board. A lot of these people are keen to continue with that work. The hon. the Minister must tell us whether the Atomic Energy Board now has full knowledge of the type of work that is going on either at universities or by mining houses. Are they informed as to how far they have proceeded along their own lines? If they are going to be agents of the Atomic Energy Board, is it fair to expect the university, for example, to do this work without compensation for it? I understand that the Bill as it is now, does provide for compensation, but I am sure that this type of work, which is so specialized and costs so much, should be paid for by the Atomic Energy Board and not by the agents who are doing this work. It means further that if a body is not an agent of the Atomic Energy Board all research comes to an end as far as they are concerned, because whatever their findings are, cannot he their own property in this country. The Republic takes over the findings, the results and the patents of any private research that may be done in this regard. This may be a good thing and I have nothing against it, but I do think that research should not be stifled because of the limitations that are now placed on research work. It should rather be encouraged; every university that wishes to undertake research into the enrichment of uranium should be encouraged to do so, and every mining house that produces uranium should be encouraged to undertake research to see whether or not they can perhaps help the Atomic Energy Board in furthering its processes.

At this stage I do feel that I would like some clarification of certain statements. The Prime Minister, made this announcement last year. In the course of his speech he said (column 56 of Hansard of 20th July, 1970)—

That is what he told us and I understood that to mean that the Atomic Energy Board through their scientists have already discovered the method of enriching uranium in a new and better way. Now, in March of this year the Director-General of the Atomic Energy Board, Dr. A. J. A. Roux, said in Pretoria that South Africa was cm the brink of a tremendous nuclear power programme. We agree with that, but he went on further when addressing a meeting of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns, and said that at the same time the board was confident that it was on the verge of the development of a revolutionary new uranium enrichment process. The two statements do not agree with each other. The Prime Minister told the House that we had completed the experiment. Now, I do not know whether that was only the first stage in the enrichment programme that we had succeeded in completing or whether Dr. Roux is modest when he talks about the fact that they are on the verge of a breakthrough. He goes on to say further in his speech—

The Minister, of course, will explain what this means and how it relates to the statement that was made by the Prime Minister. Dr. Roux says—

We are here talking about secrecy and security on the one hand in this Bill; on the other hand, Dr. Roux, who is head of the Atomic Energy Board, says that they are willing to exchange knowledge and experience in this field of research. The Minister must please tell the House how it is going to be done and what it will mean to South Africa if we are going to give to other countries the knowledge that has been gained by our scientists in this country. The House, I think, because it has voted R50 million for this project, should be informed fully about the progress that is being made. Veiled statements are not quite sufficient. It is hardly likely that anybody in this House will want details, but we want to know what progress is being made, and we do not want any ambiguity about the direction in which these research workers are working. If they have done a job let us know that they have done it; but let us not speak with two mouths, one person saying we have done it and another one that we are on the verge of doing it. It is terribly important, not only to South Africa but to the whole world to know how we stand in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, there are one or two other matters that need clarification. Will the hon. the Minister when he replies tell us what will happen if an outside company has already asked for an enrichment process to be patented? I do not know whether it has already happened that an outside body, other than the Atomic Energy Board, found a way to do some process which had the enrichment of uranium as its end point. I should like to know whether any outside country or body has applied for a licence or permit in this country. If they have done so, and that patent has been registered here, what happens to that patent? Are they going to take over the patent or will the country that has patented the process be compensated? I am not sure whether such a thing has happened. But I should like to know what has happened in this respect.

The same of course applies in respect of work done by universities and other research bodies. The work that they have done must already have been passed on to the Atomic Energy Board in most cases. Will the universities and these mining houses who have been busy trying to find ways and means of enriching uranium be compensated for the work already done? I again wish to ask the hon. the Minister how he proposes to stimulate interest in the research workers if their work is not going to be recognizes as work done by themselves. Everything that is going to be found in regard to uranium enrichment will pass on to the Atomic Energy Board. It appears to me that the universities will simply stop working. The hon. the Minister may know what is happening. I do not and the House does not know. I think we are entitled to have a full report of the processes that have taken place up to now and the amount of work that has been done in regard to uranium research.

That is all I want to say about the Bill as it stands at the moment. Other members will perhaps probe matters further. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House will support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was with surprise that I took cognizance of the doubts expressed by the hon. member for Rosettenville as to the truth of what the hon. the Prime Minister had allegedly said at the time he announced in this House the discovery relating to the concentration of uranium ores. The hon. member then went on to refer to what Dr. Roux of the Atomic Energy Board had allegedly said and asked that “the Minister should express an opinion and explain this ambiguity”.

* He said that Dr. Roux had said that we were on the verge of development whereas the Prime Minister had said that a process had in fact been discovered and that a pilot plant had been erected. When a pilot plant is erected we know that there are always plenty of teething troubles. But questions regarding the processing of the uranium have already been cleared. Research work has cleared that up. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister referred to. I therefore cannot see on what grounds the hon. member has reason to doubt the words of the hon. the Prime Minister. There is also, as far as I can see nothing wrong with the words of Dr. Roux when he said that we were on the verge of big developments in South Africa.

*The hon. member also referred to the question of universities and mining houses which were engaged in much of the activities regarding research. It is, of course, true that in any research it really is advantageous to the end result of research to have various people engaged in such research, because it is the very variety which gives so much colour and life to the country. A variety of results in research on one certain project is of tremendous value. This has also been proved by the uranium research, because there are various methods of enriching uranium. Countries such as England, America and South Africa use different methods. The view I take in this regard is that we may appoint the universities as agents. If they have proved themselves and have proved that they do have the necessary talent at the university, they may have themselves appointed as agents, if they are worthy of that; and, of course, the same applies to the mining houses. Therefore, I see no difficulty in this regard. I sincerely hope that the opportunity will be created for our universities to do much of the basic research in this connection.

I shall refer very briefly to the remarks made by the hon. member for Etosha when he tried to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister last year and the statement which was read out by the hon. member for Rosettenville. The problem here, and the cause of the difficulty and confusion, is this. Let us assume the hon. member for Etosha announces that he has invented some new machine. Let us say he claims to have invented a new motor-car which will run on water instead of petrol. We would hail him as a great inventor and he would no doubt get a few prizes, but I think we would wait to see whether this principle he announced was in fact translatable into economic practice. If the hon. member for Etosha, having honestly invented this motor-car which runs on water, were then to set up a pilot plant and were to produce this motor-car and then proceed to sell it to US at R100 000 per car, we would say to him “Thank you, we think you are a clever man and you made a great invention, but it is not economic.” This is really the problem we are talking about. We entirely accept that something has been invented. What remains to be proved to the satisfaction of the world markets is that the product of this system will in fact be competitive on the world markets, because if it is not it merely remains a distinguished invention without having any economic value. This is the contradiction to which the hon. member for Rosettenville was referring. To this question we have not yet had a reply, and I think it would be premature to seek a reply at this stage, but I do believe that we must be clear in our minds as to what is implied.

Now, if I may return to the Bill, we have before us what the hon. the Minister has described as quite a simple Bill, and so it is. It is a simple Bill with no complexities in it, but it does deal with a very important principle. The Bill requires that steps should be taken to increase the secrecy measures surrounding the whole of this process for the enrichment of uranium. We have already indicated that we go along with that. We recognize that the process which is under development in South Africa is a most important matter. It is a matter which is no doubt subject to the dangers of industrial espionage. It is something which has strategic value and we do not oppose the attempt to keep secret certain aspects of this process. If these measures are needed to keep them secret—I refer to these provisions regarding patents—then we go along with them but, Sir, it should be recognized that an attempt to increase the secrecy surrounding an industrial or a scientific process also carries grave disadvantages, and these disadvantages must be looked at squarely and so far as possible we must attempt by administrative and other means to mitigate these disadvantages.

Sir, we have in this country an outstanding scientific development which has been blessed by the authorities appointed to investigate its authenticity. We in Parliament have agreed to vote a very large sum of money—R50 million—towards the development of this process, and we look forward with great hope and confidence towards the successful development of this process. But, Sir, our first concern is this: One of the purposes of this Bill is in fact to enclose in a capsule of secrecy the work which is being carried out in a Board which, by international standards, contains a very small number of men. The number of experts on such essential matters as corrosion of special metals in the presence of certain gases requires very careful investigation. In some overseas laboratories hundreds and even thousands of people are engaged on such investigations. These are matters—and I refer particularly to corrosion—which require the most careful investigation in a new process of this kind. The numbers of people here engaged upon such matters are very limited indeed. Sir, we would like to feel that there is available to this development the talents of other nations, of other scientists, that there is a cross-pollination of ideas and that we will correspond with scientists in other fields who could make a contribution.

Sir, one sure way to delay or to failure is to enclose ourselves in a tiny scientific capsule and to stop correspondence with scientists in other parts of the world. This kind of exchange is a reciprocal matter. If indeed we are going to refuse reciprocal exchange, then the hon. the Minister who is himself a man of science—a medical man —will know that we run the grave danger of losing the vast benefits which medicine, for example, has enjoyed because of the cross-pollination of ideas across the world, and the readiness of medical men to publish as soon as possible the results of their research and discoveries. Sir, I say these things not with the intention of trying to persuade the Minister to publish forthwith the secret process which is under discussion this evening, but I do ask him to weigh most carefully the desirability of publishing what can safely and reasonably be published. Sir, it is most important that in respect of this enrichment process, which touches on a highly important and strategic matter, which in turn touches the safety of the world, we should retain the confidence of other countries, that we should retain international confidence, and I can think of three main reasons why this should be so. Firstly, in the field of nuclear energy, it is politically important that we should retain the confidence of other people. Indeed it has been the purpose of South Africa for a number of years to build its prestige in this field in order that it may be recognized as a leader on its continent in this field; that it may have a voice in world councils; and that it may therefore protect its interests in world councils. We in South Africa have deliberately attempted to build our prestige, I think on justifiable grounds, but it is most important that this effort should continue and that it should not be broken down by an undue coyness, an undue degree of secrecy, in respect of an invention which we must recognize is of importance and interest to the rest of the civilized world. Secondly, Sir, there is the question of scientific co-operation with which I have already dealt briefly. There is no question that the standing, the status, of the Atomic Energy Board in the nuclear field, speaking internationally, depends to a large extent on its willingness to publish and to share information and to gain the confidence of research people in other parts of the world. This affects its ability to recruit staff. It may need a great deal of assistance in certain specified fields. People abroad must have confidence that what we are doing is genuine, worthwhile and good, or we shall not be able to recruit the top quality staff we may need for the development of this project. Unless they have that confidence we shall also not be able to persuade other countries to share their skills with us in these joint collaborative efforts of which Dr. Roux, the president of the Board, has spoken from time to time.

Thirdly, Sir, there is the commercial interest. We are a producer of uranium. Uranium may yet before the end of this decade play a very large part, as one of our exports, in helping South Africa to balance its deficits. Uranium contracts tend to be of long duration. One enters into a contract, for example, in 1971. Deliveries commence in 1975, and the contract extends until 1980, This is the typical sort of uranium contract one enters into. This means that one has to look ahead and because enriched material is the end product, customers say “Can you produce enriched uranium? In what form or how will you sell me enriched uranium?” Sir, if South Africa bases its sales of uranium on the fact, firstly, that we have uranium and, secondly, that we have a secret process which we are not prepared to disclose and in which the world has no confidence, then it becomes almost impossible to negotiate the sale of uranium in that form. People will then tend to go elsewhere where they can buy the entire process at a known price.

Why do I say all these things? The Minister may well ask: Is there any reason to believe that the world is losing confidence in us and in our claims that we have a process for the enrichment of uranium? The answer is unfortunately “yes”. This is so, and I want to read to the House a few examples of what is being said in other parts of the world about this process. Let me take first of all, an article by David Fish-lock, the science editor of the Financial Times. He is widely recognized in Europe and elsewhere as being perhaps the most distinguished of the scientific journalists who deal with the question of nuclear energy.

He is extremely well informed. This is what he said—

They had better sack them.

I should explain, Sir, I am not reading out these comments because they endorse my views or because I wish to endorse their views. I am reading out these items to illustrate the degree of disbelief which has developed in other countries. I do not necessarily share it. David Fishlock continues, speaking of enrichment generally—

This is one comment from a knowledgeable writer in this field. I come now to others. There is as the Minister no doubt knows, a journal of high repute known as the New Scientist. This journal, in an editorial headed “Nuclear Blackmail”, said that South Africa’s motive was political, rather than commercial. This, it said, was based on the fear of South Africa being cut off from sources of enriched uranium fuel for her domestic nuclear power programme. It continued—

I now come to yet another comment in this regard. I think it is worth mentioning a few more, because it shows the growing sentiment of the type I have mentioned. The journal Nature is, I think, recognized by many physicists in the world as their official magazine. The editor of this journal, Mr. John Maddox, said after a visit to South Africa in October, that many scientists in South Africa were as skeptical as their colleagues abroad about the potential of the claim. He continued—

I have some other comments I could quote in this regard, but I shall read only one more. The following statements are taken from the Nucleonics Weekly, a leading American nuclear energy publication. It relates to a visit by Dr. Roux to Japan. It states—

Sir, I do not want to continue quoting from this article because it goes into a great deal of technical detail. The point I do want to make—and I think I have substantiated it—is that there is a growing disbelief in the outside world about the authenticity of the claims made by South Africa. This is most alarming. It causes one grave concern, mainly for the three reasons I have mentioned, namely the political reasons, the scientific reasons and the commercial reasons. For all these reasons I believe that the hon the Minister, while taking these powers for the maintenance of greater secrecy in the enrichment industry which is being built up, should consider very carefully the dangers of building up a narrow, bureaucratic type of secrecy around this process, when in fact the world is crying out for knowledge. I believe that the careful and judicious release of information could in fact bring South Africa far greater benefits than any disadvantage it could suffer through publication.

Now what type of publication should this be? I believe that South Africa like other countries can indeed publish information on the principles involved. It can publish information about the output projected; it could give some indication of the costs we anticipate. These things do not necessarily lead to the leaking out of the method being used. These things do not reveal the industrial secrets. The Americans, the French, the British, even the Russians and others have in fact from time to time released information. The Americans have released a great deal of information about the output, the amount of work, i.e. the amount of electricity that goes into the production of units of enrichment. All this detail which affects prices, which affects the commercial interests in the long run, has been released by industrial countries elsewhere, countries which possess enrichment facilities. It is most desirable, if South Africa is going to participate in this most important development of our era, that we too should not be unduly secretive, unduly reticent in producing the kind of information which builds international confidence, which would increase South Africa’s prestige and which would in fact, place South Africa’s new industry in the high position, the secure position, the admired position which we desire for it.

We have looked at this Bill. As I have said, we have no particular quarrel with it. However, we do beg the hon. Minister to ensure that our Atomic Energy Board or the UCOR, the corporation which will carry out enrichment, will not fall into this trap of keeping everything a secret and treating all outside interests as espionage. We have much to gain from co-operation, from publication, from bringing the rest of the world in, and from collaboration with the rest of the world, because we need the collaboration of the outside world. In many fields we need the cooperation and the confidence of the outside world. This is an important means of gaining if We should not cast aside this method simply because we fear the loss of one or two industrial secrets. This kind of co-operation can take place without the loss of industrial secrets involved.

There is one final point I should like to make, namely that in terms of this Bill, South African scientists, not members of the Board, will be heavily discouraged from making any contribution to the development of this enrichment process. It is quite natural that South African scientists will be interested in this process, because it is a South African process. Because uranium exists in large quantities in South Africa, it will become a major commodity in our overseas trade. It is quite natural that South African scientists will be drawn towards this field of interest and will try to make their contribution. The effect of these new patent provisions is that no person who is not directly in the employ of the Atomic Energy Board has got a snowball’s chance of making any real contribution to the development of the enrichment process. There is a further tendency towards the isolation of the Atomic Energy Board, what I call the encapsulation of the Atomic Energy Board in a tight little world of its own without any communication with the outside world. This is most dangerous. In the memorandum which the hon. the Minister was courteous enough to give to us and in which the need for the Bill is discussed, there is evidence that the Atomic Energy Board itself is concerned, is in trouble and is in doubt about precisely this point. It makes some very contradictory statements, The memorandum reads as follows—

This is on the positive side. They can go on doing their research. If they are lucky to make progress, they may sell the results to the board. But immediately hereafter 1he memorandum goes on to say—

It is a complete contradiction, or rather a paradox. It goes on to say—

There is added this further discouragement. The purpose of this Bill is quite clearly to exclude the participation of not only foreign countries and of foreign scientists but it is determined equally to exclude any participation by South African scientists, it in fact excludes everybody who is not actually in the direct employment of the board. The Minister, being a scientific man himself, will know that this is scientifically unsound. It is scientifically unsound to surround yourself with a cocoon which insulates you from the rest of the world. For all these reasons we are not happy about the trend shown by this Bill towards increasing isolation and towards increasing secrecy for fear of a leakage of an industrial secret. We accept this Bill and we shall support it because we believe that certain powers are needed. However, we fear the abuse of these powers and we hope sincerely that the hon. the Minister, who I am sure has understood what I have been trying to say to him this evening, will do his best to exercise his influence to ensure that the board does not become obsessed with the element of secrecy, and that it will in fact seek international co-operation for the good of the board and for the country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply briefly to a few points which had been made by hon. members. In regard to the last point which the hon. member who has just sat down as well as the hon. member for Rosettenville have made, I would like to say the following. He expressed fears that there might be isolation from the outside world in our research. The hon. member read from this document I made available to him. The tendency he seems to dislike has been in existence since 1963. This discovery that was made in South Africa, was made under such conditions. It is stated very clearly that: “Verryking op nywerheidskaal word nog geheel en al deur die Wet op Kerninstallasies, 1963 verbied”. In other words, this has been the position all along. All that we are adding now has specifically to do with patent rights in regard to the enrichment of uranium. It does not deal with research at all. That has been dealt with already in 1963. Therefore the point raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. member for Rosettenville, is not a point which is applicable to this amendment.

It has been in existence all along and it has not discouraged our scientists. The hon. member is also aware of the fact that research is also being done at Cape Town University, Stellenbosch University and other universities. That research is being done with the specific financial assistance of the board, and with the full knowledge of the provisions of section 27 of the Atomic Energy Act. There it is stated inter alia—

That is the position today, and we are not changing it.

Then the hon. member raised another point. He quoted from certain articles which expressed doubts in certain people’s minds as to whether we have in fact made a discovery or not. I must say that I regret the fact that the hon. member for Rosettenville has also joined the ranks of these people. There can be no doubt at all that, firstly, a discovery has in fact been made. As a matter of fact, that was stated by the Prime Minister. Secondly it was also stated that the Uranium Corporation was established for that purpose, in other words to erect a pilot plant. All scientists in the world know what it means when one erects a pilot plant. In my speech this afternoon I pointed out that there is a possibility that we might earn money and get some benefit from the operation of this particular plant. Therefore there can be no question about the fact that, firstly, a discovery has been made. Secondly, I can state that progress in excess of what we have contemplated has been made with the erection of the pilot plant. I must, however, just put one thing right. The hon. member said in his speech that this pilot plant will cost South Africa R50 million. We have given no indication whatsoever …

No, you have voted R50 million.

No, we have not voted R50 million either. All we have done is that we have made provision in the Act whereby the Uranium Corporation was established, that a capital amount of up to R50 million might be incorporated in the Uranium Corporation. No specific indication whatsoever has been given in this regard.

The hon. member read from certain reports. I want to say immediately that we have great confidence in our scientists and in the Atomic Energy Board and that the prestige of these people is as high as one can expect of any body like the Atomic Energy Board. Both Dr. Roux and Dr. Grant, and the work done by them and others, are held in very high esteem all over the world. I am also fully aware that efforts are being made by different people to minimize the achievements of our scientists. As far as I know, however, none of these efforts came from scientists of repute. There is no question of losing confidence, because they know we are busy with the pilot plant. We will have to be patient. Hon. members on the other side, and scientists all over the world, will have to be patient, because we have to await the results obtained from this pilot plant. I also want to say that we are daily in full contact with scientists all over the world. In this particular instance it would be foolish of South Africa to share our knowledge at a stage where we have not made a full survey of the position of the countries involved nor have come to an agreement. I may say that in general we have made satisfactory progress in our dealings with other countries in regard to this particular process.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also raised a query about the discrepancy he seemed to have detected in the statement made by the Prime Minister on the one hand and the statement made by Dr. Roux on the other. There is no question at all of a discrepancy. The hon. member will realize that Dr. Roux and the Atomic Energy Board are modest in the extreme. They always have been, and that is how it should he with scientists. I want to give the hon. member the assurance, however, that the knowledge of the process is known to them.

The hon. member also asked whether we are fully informed about the research that is being done in the country at the moment. The answer is yes. We are not only fully informed; we are also actively participating in the research and in financing it. Furthermore, the Act already makes provision for compensation to be paid to an individual or individuals in instances where the board might take over a discovery or whatever research they have done.

In conclusion, I would like to pinpoint the purpose of the Bill once again. It deals only with the enrichment of uranium as such. All other aspects of uranium research have already been covered in other measures. This Bill is only to deal with the enrichment of uranium. Finally, I would like to tell hon. members in regard to the erection of the pilot plant that since the announcement of the Prime Minister, further improvements of our process have taken place. We did not as a matter of fact expect to make the progress that we have made since the announcement of the Prime Minister, and it argues well and will strengthen our belief that the pilot plant will prove that this will be an economic process.

This afternoon I briefly want to dwell on a remark which the hon. member for Pinelands made last Friday with respect to section 6 of our Terrorism Act, a remark that I also consider to be important. The hon. member for Pinelands and several opposition speakers have in the past asked that a so-called review tribunal be incorporated in section 6, The hon. member did not actually give a broad motivation for why a review tribunal should be introduced as far as section 6 is concerned. In fact, the hon. member did not give much attention to the use of such a review tribunal and the statistics he quoted actually militate against such a review tribunal. But the hon. member spent a tremendous amount of time trying to show that the establishment of a review tribunal with respect to section 6 would win us friends in the world and that it could influence certain people. The hon. member said that we in South Africa need friends. We agree with him wholeheartedly, but then the hon. member also mentioned two examples of countries which have so-called review tribunals and how this could win friends for those countries. I shall come back to that at a later stage. But to determine whether the argument is valid, i.e. that such a review tribunal could have any application in our section 6, it is necessary for us to look at how matters are regulated in other countries of the world. I want to allege, with due respect to the hon. member, that specifically the two examples the hon. member mentioned, i.e. that of Guiana in the first place, are not examples applicable to our section 6. I want to claim that the hon. member erred in his argument with respect to Guiana. Looking at the position in Guiana we see, inter alia, that the New York Times of 26th November, 1966, reports the Prime Minister of Guiana as follows, while he was dealing with his law, which can be compared with ours. The report reads as follows—

The point I want to make here is that the hon. member is confusing our section 6 with this Guiana Act and the Rhodesian Act, since the two relevant acts, the two examples the hon. member quoted, are concerned with people who are detained in order to get them out of circulation as far as certain acts against the security of the State are concerned. One can add further examples to those two instances for the sake of comprehensiveness, examples where one does, in fact, have a so-called advisory board or a review tribunal to investigate the position of detainees. India’s Preventative Detention Act of 1950 does, in fact, make provision for an advisory board, but here we also find very clearly that the Act deals with people who are detained in order to keep them from crimes that threaten the security of the State. It is detention in order to keep troublemakers away from the trouble they can cause. Malaya's Internal Security Act of 1966, in which provision is also made for an advisory board, provides for detention for two years at a time. This can be reviewed every two years, but the person is not detained in order to obtain certain information or evidence from him, but with a view to keeping him out of circulation. Sir, we have a similar case as far as Pakistan is concerned, we also find the same thing in Tanzania’s Act of 1962, the Preventative Detention Act, and we find it in Zambia’s Preservation of Public Security Regulations. Sir, our section 6 provides that a person may be detained for questioning and that evidence can be obtained from him, but this must lead to one of two things. Either such a person is charged if there is sufficient evidence against him, or if the person has given sufficient evidence to satisfy the Commissioner of Police, or nothing can be brought against him, the Commissioner of Police is compelled to set him free. Sir, the only Act that could possibly be compared with our Act is Canada’s Public Order and Measures Act of 1970, where we are dealing with more or less similar circumstances. With that Act, which is comparable to our Act, no provision is made for a review tribunal or an advisory board with respect to such persons. I therefore consider it important that we should state very clearly what the difference is between our section 6 and things in the rest of the world that resemble our section 6, because it could create a very distorted picture in the world at large of the hon. the Minister and the Government, since the Opposition has now been insisting so many times that a review tribunal or an advisory board should be established so that the people can be cross-questioned periodically. Sir, if there is any merit in the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands, we must accept the fact that we could not simply get the members of such a review tribunal from the streets. To carry weight, the members of the review tribunal must be judges, and since our judiciary is so highly respected in the rest of the world on the basis of its impartiality, we cannot allow judges to act within the scope of section 6, thereby making investigating officers of them in the investigation of crime, subsequently returning to the Bench in order to pass judgment as far as crime is concerned. Sir, I am afraid that this whole idea of a review tribunal, which the hon. member for Pinelands raised, cannot be made applicable, very simply because under section 6 we are dealing with people to whom we cannot show such mercy. We must be very dear about that, Sir. I want to remind the hon. member for Pinelands and hon. gentlemen on the Opposition side of the statement which the hon. the Minister of Police made here yesterday with respect to what happened to our own boys on our borders as a result of terrorist action. Sir, we are not dealing here with ordinary criminals; we are dealing with people who, in their own right, have been so trained and act in such a way that we cannot treat them as ordinary criminals. I have no doubt that the establishment of a review tribunal without people with a legal background would have no meaning at all, and I reject the standpoint that we must use judges for investigation purposes, subsequently letting those judges take their place on the Bench again.

Mr. Speaker, I should like at this stage to reply to the speeches made by members who participated in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. member for Christiana for providing the hon. member for Pinelands with an adequate reply. The note I made of what the hon. member for Pinelands said, was very simple. He must tell me whether he is prepared to support indefinite detention. If he and his Party are prepared to support indefinite detention, I shall be prepared to consider the idea he left in our midst here. I agree with what the hon. member for Christiana said. Since section 6 is quite simply intended for the purpose of interrogation to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police, one simply cannot come forward with a body like the Review Tribunal, as he called it.

I should like to come to the principal sneaker on the Opposition side, the hon. member for Durban North, who suddenly discovered that the Police are making use of the wrong section, viz. section 6, in internal cases, while they should supposedly be making use of section 22 of the previous year’s legislation. The hon. member for Musgrave then said that as the position changed the Minister ought to come to this House, state the position and ask for other powers. Now I want to inform both hon. members that this is not the case; I do not agree with them that when I submitted this measure to the House in 1967 I said on that occasion that the section would be applied only in respect of terrorists on our borders. I am going to read to hon. members what I said. I am quoting from Hansard, 1st June, 1967, column 7024. I began by saying—

This is what I said when I submitted this particular measure to the House—

This was the background which I sketched. But what did I say in regard to section 6? In column 7029 of Hansard I said the following—

It is very clear from this that there was never any question of it being used exclusively in respect of our borders. But I want to go further. What is being provided now in section 6 of the Terrorism Act?

Section 6 (1) provides that—

Oh, there is not even any question about that. Why have hon. members on that side of the House been sitting fast asleep all this time? Last year the matter of the 22 detainees was discussed in this House. There was never any question raised about their having been detained in terms of section 6. But now, suddenly, the hon. member for Durban North wakes up, followed by the hon. member for Musgrave. Now it is a terrible thing for the hon. the Minister of Police to detain these people in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. It is true that the police have a choice between two laws. But if they choose to detain persons in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act, it is their business. If the hon. member wants to take the matter further, he should rather discuss it with the hon. the Minister of Police when his Vote is being discussed.

What is your duty?

My duty is also specified in section 6 of the Terrorism Act. Section 6 (4) reads as follows—

The Minister may at any time order the release of any detainee.

But I cannot recommend his release because he is being detained in terms of a certain section. The rest of section 6 reads as follows—

1. (5) No court of law shall pronounce upon the validity of any action taken under (his section, or order the release of any detainee.
2. (6) No person, other than the Minister or an officer in the service of the State acting in the performance of his official duties, shall have access to any detainee, or shall be entitled to any official information relating to or obtained from any detainee.
3. (7) If circumstances so permit a detainee shall be visited in private by a magistrate at least once a fortnight.

I see to it that this is done. What is more, it is further provided that the Commissioner shall report to me as soon as possible when a person is being detained, and also where that person is being detained. This he does regularly. Therefore, as far as the attack by the hon. member for Durban North, supported by the hon. member for Musgrave, is concerned, I want to say that I find absolutely no grounds to justify it.

The hon. member also discussed the question of the large number of prisoners. He said: “It is becoming a way of life”. I make no apology whatsoever for the fact that we have this large number of prisoners in this country. The simple reason for it is that, according to a test we made, it was found that no fewer than 42 per cent of these prisoners are being detained as a result of influx control. We make no apology for that. It is the Government’s policy, and if there is a case where a person has contravened the law, he must be arrested and detained if he cannot be punished in another way. That is simply how matters stand. We do not want the same position on the outskirts of our cities and on the Witwatersrand which existed in the days of the United Party, when shanty towns were erected which we subsequently had to clear up. We do not want that.

The hon. member also spoke of corrective training. He said that rehabilitation was the idea behind prisons, and then asked why corrective training was necessary, The fact of the matter is simply that corrective training is intended for the younger person to whom one is able to give vocational training over a number of years. Specific provision is also being made to the effect that corrective training may be applied where a transfer from a reformatory to a prison takes place. It is then deemed, in terms of the Prisons Act, that such a person has been sentenced to corrective training, when he can then receive the necessary attention.

The hon. member than proceeded to make out an entire case in regard to the question of legal aid. In the first place the hon. member said that legal aid was like medical aid. But surely that is not true. The hon. member is exaggerating when he says that. Legal aid is necessary and medical aid is necessary, but there is a big difference between the two. The difference lies in the fact that one has a very large measure of control over factors determining the necessity for legal aid. One does not have that control in the case of medical aid. One does not have that control when a person becomes ill and there is no control over the physical condition a person may find himself in. One does in fact have control over whether it is necessary for one to request legal aid. The hon. member also said that the amount of R250 000 which had thus far been voted was nothing, and that millions would be needed. The hon. member for Jeppes went even further and said that at least R1½ million would be required for that purpose.

That is correct.

That is pure guesswork. How does the hon. member calculate that R 1½ million?

How do you calculate the R250 000?

R250 000 was decided on because nothing was allocated during the first two years. R200 000 was voted the first year. It only started this year, and the amount has been increased by a further R50 000. We shall now see what happens. The Legal Aid Board must draw up an annual report for me The board must inform me of the progress being made with its scheme. These amounts will therefore be made available, depending upon the circumstances. But I maintain that R250 000 for the first year, while we are engaged in an experiment in this regard, is quite adequate. It was pure guesswork on the part of the hon. member when he mentioned the amount of R1½ million.

No.

Yes, it was pure guesswork. The hon. member had no justification for that.

That is what I was told by legal experts.

Is the hon. member not himself a legal expert? Both hon. members complained about the terrible delays in getting the legal aid scheme under way. Do hon. members not realize that this House, itself was unable to come up with a plan? We had no plan, unless we were to give everyone free legal aid. What we did, with the support of that side of the House, was to establish a Legal Aid Board consisting of sensible people, under the chairmanship of a judge with advocates and attorneys to assist him. We said to them: Go and work out a scheme. And that is what they did. Of course, this took time. I have the whole long story here, but I do not want to bother this House with it now. The scheme was eventually put into operation last month. I must mention that we received very fine co-operation from the advocates The hon. member said that the small amounts being charged by the advocates were “chicken feed’’. We had the best co-operation possible from the advocates. They clearly realized that it was their task and duty as well to make their contribution in regard to legal aid.

Just as the doctors do.

Yes, just as the doctors do. That is what the position should be. Where we did experience delays was with the side bar. There we were unable to reach an agreement, although many discussions were held. The delay was such that the chairman of the Legal Aid Board subsequently decided to put this scheme into operation and simply to pay attorneys whatever they charged, subject to revision or assessment. Since then a committee has been appointed to reach an agreement in respect of the attorneys. Sir, no blame may therefore be attached to the Legal Aid Board in regard to its functions up to the present, or the amount it has at its disposal, and I am pleased to be able to say that that Board has at last begun to function.

The hon. member for Prinshof defended section 6. I am grateful for that, He also referred to the statement by Judge President Beyers before the juristic department of the University of Stellenbosch, when he said that bureaucracy was taking over the legal profession. I saw this report on the remarks made by the hon. judge in fee newspaper. It appeared on 26th April. I was surprised when I read of the two cases the hon. judge mentioned. For that reason I wrote to him immediately on the 27th April, the next day, as follows (translation)—

On 11th May I received a short letter from the hon. judge in which he said that he had not forgotten about this, and that the matter was receiving his attention. His division would forward a full statement in this connection. In reply to that I said to him again in a letter on 14th May that the statement or memorandum which was going to be forwarded would receive the necessary attention when we received it, but that I should specifically like to hear about the two cases he had mentioned so that I could have them investigated. The date today is the 25th May, and unfortunately I have not yet heard from the hon. judge. Consequently I cannot at this stage give further attention to the matter.

The hon. member for Kroonstad referred to the prison at Kroonstad. He was greatly pleased with it, and praised the persons in question. I want to say that if I had been the hon. member for Kroonstad I would myself have been very pleased with what has been done there in respect of prison training. I thank the hon. member for the recognition he gave us.

The hon. member for Houghton raised quite a number of points. To sum up, it seems to me that she in actual fact supports the hon. judge Jan Steyn on the question of legal reform. According to her he suggested that provisional release should be applied by the courts to a greater extent. I think I should just dwell on that for a moment. The hon. judge Jan Steyn takes a great interest in the question of penal reform and the rehabilitation of prisoners. I have the utmost respect for the good work his society is doing. What happens, however, is that there is a great deal of discussion of this matter, while unfortunately there is very little one can say about it. One can mention the number, and that the judge is already doing. He subsequently went further. I find the difficulty to be that the judge is cursing the darkness, but he is not introducing any light. The hon. member spoke here and all she could mention was more probation. Now I want to inform the hon. member and the House as to what the Department of Justice has already done in this regard.

You see, I accept that as long as we have pass laws we are going to have all these first and short-term offenders.

I just want to mention what we are already doing. In section 345 of the Act we provide that corporal punishment may be inflicted upon a juvenile in lieu of any other punishment. They must therefore he kept out of the prisons. In addition we have made provision for periodic imprisonment. We are trying to keep them out of the prisons as far as possible. The latter provision is contained in section 334 (bis). In terms of section 337 we may attach their property. In addition we can enter into recognizances for the payment of fines. This is also a means of keeping them out of prison. In terms of section 348 recognizances may, under certain circumstances, be entered into in lieu of any punishment “that he shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour”. Section 349 provides for the postponement of the passing of any sentence in a higher court. In terms of that a sentence may be postponed as long as the person is of good behaviour and stays out of prison. Section 352 empowers the suspension of a sentence imposed, the postponement of the passing of sentence as well as the payment of fines in instalments. Section 353 empowers the seizure of moneys upon the person of the person convicted for the payment of fines. Some do not want to pay, although they do have the money in their pockets. They refuse to pay because they would rather go to prison. In terms of this section, the court is empowered to seize such moneys so that the fine may be paid. Section 351 makes provision for admission of guilt, and section 387 authorizes the compounding of certain minor offences. That, then, as far as the provisions in the Act are concerned.

Hon. members know that one cannot interfere with judicial discretion. The Secretary of my Department attends magistrates’ conferences, where he keeps them informed in a very tactful way. He has already done this, and he also focuses attention by means of circulars on all the various provisions which have been laid down to keep people out of the prison. In one of the circulars the departmental prescription was amended in such a way that it provided that every person on whom a line of R6 or less is imposed must be given postponement without exception. Then, we have established the “Prisoner’s Friend”, and it is bis task to make contact with close relatives or with the parents of a prisoner, so that he will be able to stay out of prison. On 24th April, 1970, the Department once again sent out a circular, and once again magistrates’ attention was drawn to section 352. Magistrates are urged to make more frequent use of the suspension or postponement of sentences, coupled with placing the condemned person on probation. All these things have already been done. I think I have said enough in regard to this matter. As long as influx control exists, I am afraid a considerable proportion of these prisoners wil have to be sent to prison.

The hon. member also discussed the conditions in prisons. She said that she had received letters from several prisoners. In the short time at my disposal I was unfortunately unable to make proper inquiries so that I could reply to the hon. member. What I will in fact do is to make inquiries in this connection and make the information available to her. I must say that I as Minister am also continually receiving letters. They are usually unsigned, but sometimes the writer does append his signature. If we do subsequently go into the matter, we find that there is after all not very much in it.

It doesn’t sound like that to me.

Yes, it is in fact the case. It is truly the case. She then discussed conditions in prisons. Let me tell this House that we in South Africa have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in our prisons. I was overseas and I visited any number of prisons, and held very informal talks with the people to see whether there was anything we could learn from one another, but generally speaking we have nothing to be ashamed of.

Some of them are very overcrowded.

Yes, that is possible, in some places. In other places there is also overcrowding. Then the hon. member spoke of the assaults which take place in prisons. That is correct. Assaults do take place in prisons, assaults by one or more prisoners on other prisoners. They usually belong to the 28s, or the 29s, or the Russians or the Big Five. These things do take place, mostly at night when there is a minimum of staff, although we take the precaution of connecting all cells to the central office by means of a bell system. It is up to the people who are being assaulted to ring the bell, and then of course assistance is rushed to them. Sometimes one does not know how they get hold of the various instruments with which they commit assaults in the prisons.

They sharpen spoons.

Yes, they do that, and they conceal them, and you would be surprised where they conceal them! The hon. member said conditions had deteriorated, but I want to assert that there is outside supervision over the prisons—and not only by prison authorities—which is as good as the following example indicates. During the year 1969-70 35 Judges paid surprise visits to our prisons. The hon. member said that they must not announce their visits. They do not announce their visits. Thirty-five Judges paid visits to prisons, and 119 magistrates paid visits to prisons, and from all the most favourable report were received.

Will you let me pay a surprise visit?

The hon. member will come here with strange stories.

I will only tell the truth.

But apart from that, members of the House of Assembly and members of the Cabinet and 1 005 outsiders paid visits to prisons. [Interjections.] We also have the Prisons Board which visits our prisons from time to time. There is an annual visit by the Government Health Inspectors, and it may be stated without fear of contradiction that conditions have improved in all respects and that the interpersonal relationships are as good as may be expected.

The hon. member also mentioned the case of Mr. Harry Sam. There is nothing wrong with Mr. Harry Sam.

He only shoots people.

Yes, he wounded a few people and was found not guilty. There was a postmortem and there was no indication that this man was guilty, or that he had committed any unlawful act. But the case the hon. member was really referring to is this. She asked me a question, in April I think it was. In that case Mr. Harry Sam was again before the court, charged with assault with the intent of inflicting serious bodily harm, but do you know what he did? He had a bottle and he hit a man with that bottle. In that question the hon. member wanted to know whether the magistrate could not make use of section 8 or section 9 to cancel his firearms licence.

The psychiatrist who gave evidence said that the man was psychiatrically unsound.

You cannot cancel a firearm licence when a man strikes someone with a bottle. The hon. member expressed her regret …

[Inaudible.]

The MINISTER The hon. member must give me a chance now; she has had ample opportunity to speak. She expressed her regret at my not being able to allow a remission of sentence to these people who committed offences in respect of State security. She went through the list and saw that I had not treated them any differently to cattle thieves …

And rapists and people who contravene the Immorality Act.

They received the same treatment as cattle thieves and people who contravened the Immorality Act. Sir, I think that I have with this more or less disposed of the points raised by the hon. member for Houghton.

What about abortions?

The hon. member pleaded for abortions to be allowed in certain cases.

No, I asked for an investigation into the law.

I just wanted to tell the hon. member that one is of course treading on very dangerous ground here. This is not a matter to which one can give an immediate reply, one way or the other, but I did acquaint myself with the gynaecologists' resolution, and I also took note of the questionnaire drawn up by Mr. Justice van Wyk. He did not recommend it; it was merely a questionnaire. I think that I should leave it at that for the moment.

I will ask you again next year.

Sir, the hon. member for Zululand mentioned a very unfortunate case here which one finds regrettable, but the facts of the matter are as he stated them here. I am referring to the Knysna case where the sentence of corporal punishment was inflicted by the plaintiff.

Where is he now?

He apologized for not being able to be present when I replied to this, I also saw the report in the newspaper, and we made immediate inquiries from the magistrate. According to the magistrate Sgt. Vosloo the complainant, gave evidence and then left the court. It was a particularly busy day, the magistrate said, and when he passed sentence, he asked the public prosecutor as usual who would mete out corporal punishment that particular day. The prosecutor mentioned Sgt. Vosloo’s name because he usually inflicts corporal punishment.

It may be coincidence.

The magistrate lost sight of the fact that Sgt. Vosloo was also the complainant in this particular case, and included Sgt. Vosloo’s name in the court order without thinking. Sgt. Vosloo subsequently inflicted the corporal punishment in the presence of the station commanding officer. The magistrate gave the assurance that he had no ulterior motives and that it was never his intention that the complainant should mete out the corporal punishment. I agree that it is very regrettable that this should have happened, and one hopes that something like this will never happen again.

The hon. member also spoke about the delays in our courts and said inter alia that the people no longer wanted to go to court for the simple reason that they were held up to such an extent. Sir, this is a very important matter. We need the co-operation of the public in out administration of justice. Just as one needs a judicial officer, a prosecutor and a person who needs defending, so too one needs the co-operation of the public. There are delays, but the delays are of two kinds; some are unavoidable and others may possibly be avoided. Unavoidable delays we must not take into account here, for one finds that witnesses change their address and that on the day they have to appear before court, they do not turn up. A particular witness is necessary for the plaintiff’s case; the plaintiff must therefore make application for a postponement and the application must be granted. Then there are delays owing to the need to trace witnesses who are alleged to be capable of giving material evidence and who are mentioned for the first time during the trial. Nobody can help this, and in such cases postponement must be granted. Then there are delays owing to the illness of accused, witnesses or anyone else for that matter, whose presence in the court is necessary. Then there are delays owing to the prolonged absence in a hospital of drivers, particularly in motor accident cases. In addition a postponement must also be granted in order to ascertain any previous convictions. That, too, is unavoidable. The need for interpreters in trials, also results in slow progress.

When one comes to avoidable delays, one must see what the Department is doing in this connection. The Department has recently adopted the procedure of what are called channelization courts, particularly in the larger centres. They dispose of minor cases in which a plea of guilty has been made immediately and postpone other cases for specific days in specific courts. They also dispose of hail applications, and so on. The advantage here is that the other courts are not then encumbered with applications and other trivial matters, but can make an immediate start with major cases and devote full sitting hours to them. Organization-and-method studies are also being made to see what the work load for a particular court or magistrate’s court is. Use is also being made of sound recording machines to save the time of the presiding judicial officers. Regional magistrate’s courts have also been decentralized so that they can serve specified areas. In addition, the position of the work in the various regional court areas is also being reported on, so that immediate assistance can be rendered if the time in which cases are set down and disposed of becomes to protracted. In the ordinary courts magistrates keep a careful eye on the situation. Lastly, it must also be remembered that most criminal cases are disposed of in magistrates’ courts, and that a great deal of time is necessary to make an efficient investigation. The accused is usually brought before the court and has already been under arrest for a considerable time before the investigations have been disposed of. The Police often need more time. That is what is being done within the Department.

Now I just want to mention that there is another side to this matter as well. This was something which was discussed at one of the magistrates’ conferences. The subject was the attitude of officers of courts towards witnesses. I just want to read out to hon. members what was said there, inter alia, in this connection. It was said—

The Secretary of my Department, Mr. Oberholzer, it was last year I think, addressed the Cape Law Society in East London. He referred to this and said inter alia—

In other words, we who practice law, whether advocates or attorneys, must on our part be careful how we treat a witness, whether we want to make out that he is in fact a rogue who came to court to lie, or whatever it is we want to do. They are so discouraged that what happens on the next occasion is what the hon. member for Zululand mentioned, viz. when they come upon an accident they close their eyes and drive past. That does in fact happen. I am just saying this in passing to our legal practitioners.

The hon. member also spoke of endless delays and of no waiting rooms, etc. He said: “They stand outside in all types of weather”. I do not want to say that there are suitable waiting rooms for witnesses everywhere, hut what I do want to say, is that in the new courts we are building, provision is in fact being made for that. Recently I had the privilege of inspecting the magistrate’s courts at Bethal, Evander, Klerksdorp and Vredendal and honestly, there is ample space and facilities for waiting witnesses. We are doing our best in this regard.

In conclusion the hon. member discussed the situation of our prisons. He mentioned two, Pollsmoor and Westville. The hon. member for Simonstown has already discussed the matter of Pollsmoor with me. Years ago, when we started building Polls-moor, the whole area consisted of vineyards. There was no one nearby. Since then, however, the townships have crept closer and closer until the houses were eventually adjoining Pollsmoor. Once they were adjoining Pollsmoor the hon. member for Simonstown and the Divisional Council of Cape Town began complaining. We tried to help them, but unfortunately we are unable to do so. But we as a House must realize one thing. When a town is laid out, provision is made for everything—for magistrate’s courts, homes for the aged, post offices, etc.—but the one thing for which provision is never made, is a prison. Everyone wants a prison—they see me about this all the time in my office—but nobody wants it near them. That is the unfortunate part; they would all like to have the prison labour, but the prison must be outside in the veld, where the officials cannot enjoy the necessary conveniences. Those are the circumstances. That we cannot allow. We are living in a time when we are having a struggle to find the necessary staff, and we are trying to improve our prisons in such a way that nobody can take offence in regard to them.

Pollsmoor is very poorly planned.

Oh well, not all of us are as clever with planning as the hon. member for Simonstown. But I just want to say something about Westville in conclusion. They are supposedly the greatest culprits. In Durban we have been looking for a prison site since 1916. First this is wrong, and then that. Then the city council does not want to give this, and then another body does not want to give that. It is a very long story, and I do not want to bore the House with it. Two years ago the Department of Land Tenure selected a few possible sites for us. I went to inspect them myself, turned down quite a few, and then saw fit to establish the prison on that specific site. We are establishing it in such a way that our neighbours—we are now moving in amongst them, they are not moving closer to us— will not even know that it is a prison. When it is finished it will not be possible to say, judging from its appearance, that it is a prison.

Flowering gums, etc.!

Yes, flowering gums, and all sorts of things.

I should like to reply to the hon. member for Durban Point.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No, 23.