Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with the running of State corporations, it is always our task to try and maintain a balance between the essential regulation of economic functions and similar support of worthwhile companies and industries on the one hand, and possibly undesirable Government interference in free enterprise in the economy and the possible competition of Government bodies with private enterprise on the other hand.

In the case of the fishing industry the concept of an active role for the State is probably more acceptable than in most other fields, for, as the hon. the Minister said in the course of his introductory speech, we are dealing with a biological resource which can be renewed if it is looked after properly, but which can also be wiped out by injudicious action. In effect, therefore, there can be no objection in principle to the establishment or, in this case, the continued existence of a Government body for regulating the fishing industry.

The hon. the Minister pointed out certain shortcomings in the present legislation. They are not particularly serious shortcomings, but they do exist. We see the Bill before us not as a departure from existing legislation, but rather as one that will effect the necessary improvements in places. All things probably need improving from time to time. As the hon. the Minister conceded, most of the proposed changes can hardly be regarded as far-reaching.

The hon. the Minister drew our attention to two innovations being introduced by the Bill under discussion. One is that the powers of the corporation are being extended generally so that they may cover inland or fresh waters as well. In principle there can be no objection to such an extension, but there are a few questions that can be asked about possible snags in future as regards the implementation of the legislation. However, those questions can be raised in the Committee Stage and I shall not try to go into them now.

The hon. the Minister went on to refer to the transitional provisions which have to be inserted in view of the fact that powers for which provision is made in the present legislation are to be changed and vested in other bodies in terms of the Bill. He referred to the summary of the powers of the Fisheries Development Corporation in clause 4 and especially to the appointment of the Minister as the approving authority in the place of the State President. There can be no sound reason for objecting to the proposed transfer of authority to the Minister for these purposes.

The hon. the Minister also referred to clause 36 and in particular to subsection (3) which is being inserted with a view to ensuring the validity of actions which might be invalid. I should like to return to this later in the course of my remarks.

In the original Act section 5 makes extensive provision for private shareholders of the corporation to obtain representation on the board. Such representation would have been desirable, but apparently there has never been any major private shareholding and, for that reason, the necessity of granting representation to private shareholders has never really arisen. Under the circumstances one can probably understand why the hon. the Minister seeks the power to appoint all the directors of the corporation. Nevertheless, I think one should take note of the fact that the Bill as it stands still makes provision for private shareholding under certain circumstances. Therefore, I want to express the idea that if things were to change and any significant private shareholding were to develop, provision ought to be made for the representation of such shareholders on the directorate of the corporation.

†I come now to the question of dividends. In this regard clause 20 of the Bill before us is a model of brevity and effectiveness. It simply states—

That seems to be a power that the board ought to have. It is interesting, however, to make a comparison between this and the rather elaborate provision in the legislation we are amending, a provision which actually went to considerable lengths to prevent the board from declaring dividends larger than a rather modest size so that there could always be sufficient plough-back. One cannot help suspecting that the removal from the legislation of the limitation on the size of dividends indicates a certain lack of confidence, on the hon. the Minister’s part, about there being substantial funds available for this purpose. Perhaps he could comment on that at the appropriate stage.

Maybe I have foresight.

The question of the borrowing powers of the corporation is dealt with in clause 9. The old Act allowed one to borrow up to a quarter—if I remember rightly from my reading of the old Act—of the paid-up capital and reserves. The figure now becomes one half, which is quite a healthy ratio in ordinary business terms. To my mind there is a measure of ambiguity about exactly what is meant by “loans negotiated and money raised”. There is no specific mention of debentures. I should think that they should be included in loans. Nor is there any mention of preference shares which I imagine would be included as capital rather than as loans, but provided I am correct in those assumptions, I think that allowing the corporation to borrow half of its capital sets a healthy ratio by present-day business standards. In any case, the hon. the Minister is adopting powers to authorize an even higher loan to capital ratio if this should seem to be necessary.

I should like to refer briefly to the amendments to be moved by the hon. member for Worcester and the hon. member for Germiston District. We can see no real objections to these amendments. When the hon. member for Germiston District moves “on page 5, in line 38, after the second “of" to insert: or any right which any person has against,” we take it that he is simply making provision for the acquisition, by the corporation, of loan accounts in companies which are taken over, and if that is what that amendment means, it is perfectly inoffensive. The others, I think, are also fairly obviously inoffensive.

I now come to clause 36 of the Bill about which, as I said, we want to make a few remarks. Clause 36(2) provides the following—

I think this is quite essential when we are revising the legislation in this way, and one must immediately approve of this subsection. Clause 36(3) is much less normal a provision and does, I think, require the attention of the House as it has enjoyed the attention of the hon. the Minister. It reads as follows—

This is the operative word—

The Minister has explained, if I am paraphrasing him correctly, that this clause has been inserted in this Bill just in case there was any departure from the strict procedural requirements of the legislation before, this being done in order to regularize things that may have been done, in practice, over some period of time. I would be deceiving the House if I pretended that we like this clause. We recognize that it is necessary in legislation, from time to time, to regularize what was irregular at the time of its enactment. We are, however, here inserting a permanent provision which does this automatically and which could lead to the regularization of acts of which the House is today unaware—in fact, acts of which everybody may today be unaware.

These may be matters that will only come forward in the future. We in these benches have very serious reservations about the correctness of including this subsection in the Bill. However, after considering it carefully, we have come to the conclusion that it cannot validly be regarded as constituting the principle of the Bill and, therefore, it does not afford grounds for opposing the Second Reading, and we shall not do so. But I want to say that we shall return to this matter in the Committee Stage. We hope that the hon. the Minister or other speakers on his side of the House will be able to advance arguments that will satisfy us. I want to say quite clearly that we are reserving our position in regard to the support of this clause in the Committee Stage and that our attitude in the Third Reading will be dependent on what happens in the Committee Stage.

It is in connection with clause 36(3) that we have our only serious reservation. Other matters we want to discuss can be raised in the Committee Stage and we are content not to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as was evident from the speech made by the hon. member for Parktown, this is not contentious legislation. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the spirit in which he made his Second Reading speech about the industry here last night. Since the centre of this industry is chiefly concentrated in my constituency today, there are nevertheless a few remarks which I should like to make. I am doing so in particular because the hon. the Minister suggested that further legislation will be introduced in connection with this industry.

In the first place I want to point out that that we in the Boland find ourselves in the situation that we have three very important industries there. One of the most important industries in the Boland is our fishing industry with all its various facets. After that there is our wine industry and our wheat industry. When we look at the total picture which our fishing industry presents, I think that all of us will agree that this industry is in fact being controlled or administered by three branches. Firstly, there is the Fisheries Development Corporation as such. I want to pay tribute to the work which this corporation has done over the past few years along the coastline of South Africa in order to give expression to our fishing industry. I am thinking in particular of the investment in harbour facilities for the fishing industry. There is Lamberts Bay where work is still in progress on the harbour, and a fine project is being completed in the vicinity of the Berg River mouth, which has proved to be a great success today. Then there is St. Helena Bay and Saldanha Bay and vicinity where Fishcor has been making a fine investment over the years in this industry in order to facilitate the functions of the industry.

Another branch of the fishing industry is the Sea Fisheries Division under the leadership of Dr. De Jager. That body is more specifically concerned with the control of this industry. I also want to add here that those things which are essential for this specific industry, are jealously conserved. Finally— this may be a branch of the fishing industry which is less well known—there is the functions of the Fishing Industry Research Institute under the direction of the University of Cape Town. I have here in my hand the annual reports of the institute for the past two years. It is the most interesting reading matter one can find. It is quite exciting to see what the work of the research institute entails as regards the fishing industry.

Looking at the three branches of the fishing industry, the following question occurs to me, and this is the first point which I briefly want to make today. Since we are going to look into the control of this industry again in the future, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether a greater degree of co-ordination should not be created between these three bodies so that, as is the case in our wine industry, there will be more total control as regards our fishing industry too. Then there is also the question whether it is not necessary for the people to be chosen from the industry itself to serve on such a body. As an example of what I have in mind, I should like to refer to the fine work which is being done by the KWV for the wine industry in the Boland today. Today there is not a facet of the wine industry which is not being jealously guarded by the KWV.

What I actually have in mind, is a more comprehensive, organized goodwill in this extremely interesting industry. If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer in this regard to the latest enterprise which is being tackled by bodies in the Boland, for instance the KWV, to advance this industry. An article recently appeared in By, the supplement to Die Burger on Saturdays. I hope you will allow me to read out three paragraphs from this article because in this way I want to indicate what I mean. It reads—

Quite by chance this is in my constituency—

This is what I am asking for here. In quoting this find example of what the KWV is doing, I want to say that, as a Bolander, people are always asking me: Where can I go to eat decent rock lobster? Or: Where can I get hold of rock lobster?

Suggest something.

I now want to tell the hon. the Minister what I want to suggest if one wants to get hold of a few snoek or a string of bokkoms in a hurry. A few years ago a string of dried bokkoms was something which the wheat farmers bought for their labourers in the winter months. Today it is one of the most sought-after delicacies one can find in the Boland. Does anyone know where to get hold of some?

Then there is also snoek and abalone and I can mention many other examples. If someone asks me where he can get hold of a bottle of Roodeberg, there are probably a hundred others who ask me where they can get hold of rock lobster or where they can get hold of abalone or bokkoms.

What I am asking for is the amalgamation of these three branches of our fishing industry. In this way we shall also be able to come up with the same goodwill which exists today in a body like the KWV, with its control over the wine industry. This is an idea which we can build into the future structure for the control of our sea industry. I think that it is particularly essential from a tourist point of view. One can say that anyone can go to the west coast today and catch five rock lobsters, but who in this House is prepared to risk his life to catch five rock lobsters? No one will do it. If one goes to an hotel to eat rock lobsters, one finds that if the hotel is in a position to obtain them, it has to do so from a quota holder. The quota holder then has to deduct that amount from his quota. In other words, a whole lot of bother is built into this structure, and I think we should eliminate it. I do not know what formula can be used, but it is important, especially with a view to expanding the tourist industry, that people who want to eat abalone, rock lobsters or bokkoms, should be able to do so easily. I think that this matter should be placed under the supervision of a body, as in the case of wine, where the KWV fulfils such a function. In this way it will be possible to build into this industry what I have called a comprehensive, organized goodwill. That is my first point.

The second aspect I want to raise, concerns the implementation of Government policy itself. As the hon. member who spoke before me indicated, the fishing industry and the rock lobster industry receive concessions from the State. I have here a list of all the concessions as regards fish quotas and rock lobster quotas which apply on the eastern and western coasts of our country. If one adds up these figures, one finds that a large amount of money is involved. I do not want to risk committing myself to a specific amount now, but it is a large amount nevertheless, and it depends on a concession given by the State. Concessions are held by the concession holder and these concessions are granted by the State. In recognizing the fact that these concessions are granted to them by the State, these concession holders should be prepared to implement the policy of the State. When I look at the profits made by these bodies, I think that any body that has obtained such a fish concession or rock lobster concession from the State, should be obliged to buy defence bonds. Such a body should have to invest a percentage of the profit which it makes in this way, in defence bonds. Such a body would not be running a risk; it would be making a good investment. Nor do I want it to have to invest, say, 50% of its profits in such bonds. However, I think that these concession holders should make a gesture and invest a percentage of their profits in them. I am aware of the fact that there are already a few bodies that do so. A body like the Paternoster company already does so. At one stage I was a director of that company. The hon. member for Simonstown objected very strennuously to the fact that I as an MP was a director of such a company. I am just mentioning it in order to indicate that I know what disposition prevails on the board of directors of such a company. It is one of the companies that accepts in principle today that it has to invest a portion of its profit in defence bonds every year, because it is in receipt of a concession from the State.

A second matter which is involved here, is the implementation of the Government’s policy as regards the labour pattern here in the Boland. Hon. members on the other side are not going to like what I am now going to say, but it is Government policy that we give absolute priority to Coloured labour in the western Cape. Since bodies like the fishing companies and the rock lobster companies have received concessions from the State, I feel that the State should be able to tell them that they must implement the policy of the Government and give absolute priority to Coloured labour. As I said, I know about the Paternoster company because I served on the board of directors. For many years, when the rock lobster season opened, that company sent a few lorries to the Transkei to recruit 400 or 500 Bantu. Those people were then brought to the West Coast, where they worked amongst the Coloured people. They were single Bantu men. Hon. members can go and see for themselves the tragic consequences of the process of Africanization which took place there. We brought these people into the large machine of the industry as though people were mere cogs functioning within that machine. When the five months of the rock lobster season had passed, those people returned, leaving behind the tragic consequences in the social aspect of the situation on our West Coast. At that time the hon. member for Simonstown quarelled with me and I now want to tell him that a body like the Paternoster company changed their policy two years ago and decided to implement Government policy and did away with the policy of importing a large number of Blacks for the rock lobster season. They have based their entire structure on Coloured labour, and I think that there are only about 42 Black people who are brought in annually to places like Elands Bay. The entire structure of the Paternoster company, as well as of a whole lot of other bodies, is based on Coloured labour today. Do hon. members know what the result has been? All the bodies that changed over to Coloured labour—it was an easy process in the lean times in which we are living—found that the Coloured people have a far better, keener perception of the fishing industry with all its various facets than the Black man who was forced into this machine like a cog. This is the situation.

That is why I want to address the friendly request to the hon. the Minister today that in cases where companies receive a concession from the State, it should be a condition that preference should be given to Coloured labour. I do not know whether it should be laid down in the new legislation which the hon. the Minister had envisaged, or whether it can be done administratively, but I think the principle should be laid down. It is only right that we should do so, and at the moment it is the easiest thing in the world to do. During a previous debate I pointed out that the distribution division of Escom, under the direction of this hon. Minister, is at present changing over to Coloured labour. The department has opened a small office just beyond Oakdale and within a few months more than 9 000— 9 142 to be precise—Coloured people turned up there—not at the labour office here in Cape Town, but at that small office in Oakdale. They came to look for employment at Escom and wanted to be incorporated in the distribution division. In other words, in the difficult, lean times in which we are living, the time has come for us to make this necessary modification. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in a friendly way to take a look at this situation in his policy in future.

I notice that the hon. the Minister is showing an exceptional new interest—if I may put it in this way—in our fishing industry with all its different facets. I want to invite him in advance to pay a visit to my part of the world once the session is over. I shall give him the best rock lobster he has ever enjoyed in his life. [Interjections.] If he wants a few bokkoms too, I shall have them prepared for him as well and, Mr. Speaker, you can also come along if you wish.

Thank you very much for the invitation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moorreesburg raised some interesting points and I feel we should react particularly to his call to the hon. the Minister that in certain areas, particularly our west coast, one should restrict the employment of labour to the Coloured section of the community. We in these benches are of the opinion that there are without any doubt a vast number of Black people living and working legally in the Cape and in the western Cape areas. If one looks at reports on Crossroads one finds that some of the Black men there …

You do not know what you are talking about!

… have in fact been in the area for 18, 19 years. We believe those people should be able to sell their labour wherever they best can, and if they are able to secure a position in the crayfish concession industry they should be entitled to do so.

There are two questions I should like to ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg, questions he has told us he has been asked before. I should also like to obtain a bottle of Roodeberg. I have never heard of “bokkoms” in my life before and should therefore be grateful to hear some more about it. [Interjections.]

This Bill is basically following up on an Act which was passed by Parliament in 1944. All the principles of the Bill were basically contained also in the Bill of 1944. Only, in those days we had a very good Government. We believe they did a good job in those days. But we are happy that the principles are being extended. There are, as the hon. the Minister has said, only two new principles in this Bill and I shall refer to them in due course. One has to look, as the hon. member of the Official Opposition has said, at the Bill in the light of the free enterprise system. We believe, however, that when it comes to fishing, one does find that a somewhat different ball game applies. Basically anyone can fish the same areas in the sea. So, one operator can destroy the fishing for many other operators if he were allowed free rein to catch as much as he wanted and sell as much as he wanted. We believe that control by the State therefore is necessary in this instance. We believe it is in the interest of the public of South Africa that our fishing industry should be controlled and protected.

In this respect I want to agree with what the hon. member for Simonstown has said in a speech earlier in the session when he called for better control over fishing in False Bay. Here we have a classic instance of where the unscrupulous activities of some can damage the situation in general. The sea, unlike Parliament, knows no bounds. One operator can, as I have said, virtually destroy the industry for the rest of the fishermen and for the public. However, the control we exercise over fishing must not be abused. I believe that in exercising the powers they will have in terms of this Bill, the corporation must ensure that they act in a responsible and sensible way and that concessions are not granted willy-nilly. It is an interesting suggestion the hon. member for Moorreesburg has made, i.e. that they should also have to buy defence bonds when they obtain a concession. We do not have anything against that. To us it sounds like a pretty reasonable suggestion.

We appreciate that one is dealing with concessions here which are worth a great deal of money, particularly crayfish concessions. A crayfish concession is certainly a very valuable concession. We must call on the hon. the Minister to ensure that in the carrying out of the provisions of this Bill, it is done responsibly in every respect. I believe that the corvoration has acted responsibly in the past. We must also ensure that our children’s inheritance is looked after so that they will also be able to have a fishing industry in the future.

I now wish to come to the two new principles contained in the Bill. The one is on page 9, clause 5, which empowers the Minister, if the corporation deems it necessary, to allow the corporation to exercise its powers over inland waters. I feel that we have a somewhat different situation here. It is not like the sea. Many of these inland waters are under private control. If someone abuses his own inland waters he is causing himself damage and not really damage to the State as such. One can say that this is equivalent to the farmer who overgrazes his farm. Unfortunately there are no powers which can prevent him from doing so.

There are powers to stop him.

There are certain powers, yes, but they are very often exercised too late. One must bear in mind that the corporation has tremendous powers. It has, for instance, the power to prevent any person from disposing of any fish or any fish product otherwise than through the corporation. It can fix the maximum and minimum prices at which any specified persons may buy any specified kind of fish. It may prohibit any person from acquiring any specified kind of fish or fish products. The powers in this Bill are very, very wide. If the intention of introducing fresh waters and inland waters is to help the farmer, private enterprise, to establish fish farms, if the intention is to make money available to set up the facilities for the breeding of fish and for the commercial production of fish, then I would say that clause 5 is an exceptionally good one. One must, however, look at the other point of view and look at the amount of control it gives to the corporation in terms of controlling the price of fish. I therefore believe that while we support the Bill basically in principle, we must once again ask the hon. the Minister and the corporation to exercise extreme care in the way they exercise these powers, because we certainly do not want any further inroads by the State into private or free enterprise.

Finally, I come to clause 36(3), on which the hon. member for Parktown has already commented. We in these benches agree with his point of view that this particular clause seeks to put right anything which might have been incorrectly done in the past. It is not the kind of clause which I believe Parliament should look at lightly. However, we shall not comment further on this clause at this stage, because, as the hon. member for Parktown said, this is mainly a Committee Stage Bill, and therefore we shall take the matter further there.

Mr. Speaker, if someone who is involved in the fishing industry does not know bokkoms, then I do not know!

I offer my congratulations to the hon. the Minister and his officials on the upgrading and consolidating of the Act. The industry is perhaps about to enter its greatest growth phase in its history and is about to play its greatest role in its history. The fishing industry, perhaps more than any other industry, is about to undergo its greatest technological leap. It is therefore very important that we look at the situation before the position becomes highly charged or conflicts emerge. Clause 5, which introduces an important new principle, empowers the corporation, subject to the prior approval of the Minister, to extend its powers over impounded waters and fresh water. That is very wise because there is no single body in South Africa at the moment that looks at the overall possibility of exploiting fresh and impounded water on a national scale. That is very important, because if we look at the exponential population growth and at the linear food production potential both nationally and internationally, we understand that fresh water aquaculture and mariculture are going to become extremely important.

It is interesting to note that in those countries with high population concentrations, for example Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand, this technology has already reached an advanced stage. It is already an important element in the economies of these and other countries of the Far East, and also an important factor in the feeding of their people. Furthermore, the difficulty that Sea Fisheries have is the question of where the line is drawn between seawater fish and fresh water fish. Let us take the eel, for example. An eel spawns in seawater after which it goes upstream into fresh water where it lives most of its adult life, only returning to seawater to spawn. Is the eel therefore a fresh water fish or a sea fish? The same applies to prawns. Prawns spawn in the sea and then return to the estuaries, only returning to the sea again to spawn.

Another example we can take is the oyster station at Knysna. It is actually situated in brackish fresh water. This clause, therefore, will enable the Minister to rationalize the situation.

Technologically man is at the moment roughly in a situation which is very similar to the situation in which he was 5 000 years ago. 5 000 years ago man was a hunter and a collector. As far as fishing is concerned, we are at present roughly in that same position. 5 000 years ago man planted his first seeds and thus became a cultivator of the soil. Similarly we are now in the process of becoming cultivators of the sea and of the fresh waters. It is clear, therefore, that we are now historically in a very important phase of this whole process of food production.

As far as fresh water cultivation is concerned, this principle is, of course, very important. Our coastline is wild. It is a coastline with very little protected water. Therefore, what aquaculture is to take place is likely to take place inland or along the coast. We do not have much potential for aquaculture in the sea, unlike Japan, for example, a country with 3 000 sea farmers producing something like 20%, or 800 000 tonnes of its 5 million tonne catch by fish breeding. In South Africa we do not have that potential. However, we do have the potential of exploiting fresh water. In Taiwan, where the position is very similar to our own, we find that 77% of their fish harvest is in fact produced in fresh water. In Taiwan this is an important industry—it is worth roughly R160 million a year.

*Talking of fresh water, I just want to point out that today we are damming up six times as much water as in 1952. At the moment we have approximately 17 000 million cubic metres of impounded water. Of the 15 most important dams in the country, ten have been built since the ’sixties.

†More than 20 important canal and dam projects are presently being planned or are already under construction at the moment. This proves to us our enormous growth potential in the field of aquaculture.

The US Department of the Interior tells us that with the doubling of the present population of the United States that country’s need for water will probably multiply by four. Furthermore, it is stated that the present population of the United States will use more water in the rest of their lives than all people in the history of mankind put together have used to date.

Trout was imported to South Africa in 1867 and this was made possible by Act 10 of the old Cape legislature. It was only in 1890 that the first brown trout were hatched in South Africa. That was actually the beginning of the process of trout hatching in this country. Trout, of course, originally came from Scotland. In 18% carp were introduced into South Africa. Today these “rough” fish are found all over South Africa, mostly in neglected water. These can be harvested by net. I know that recreational fishermen oppose this. They oppose this quite wrongly because their fears are groundless since there is no way in which an angler can ever overfish the huge concentrations of algal-grazing moggel, carp and so on. There are mammoth concentrations in the fresh water vleis and so on. There is no man who lives within walking or cycling distance from Zeekoevlei who needs suffer a protein deficiency. With a piece of line, hook and a piece of bait he can in a very short time catch himself all the fish he can eat. Yet, we ignore completely this source of food.

It always amuses me that we laugh at the people in India who have something like 85 million buffalo and cows. The 54 million cows are considered to be holy by the Hindus and we say that they do not use them. We say the fact that they do not use that enormous resource constitutes a waste. Yet, we in South Africa are surrounded by huge concentrations of fresh water and we do not use this at all for fresh water food production. I think we are to the Indians, who can use such water concentrations, as much an object of amusement as they are to us.

However, we have advanced a little bit. There are 112 registered fish farmers in the Waterberg district of the Transvaal where the first Fisheries Co-operative in South Africa was established in 1973. This co-operative falls under the control of the Transvaal provincial administration and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services since the fish farmers make use of that department’s extension officers. These fish farmers can sell more than they produce. The demand in the Vaal Triangle exceeds their production. The Marble Hall research station produced 600 fingerlings in 1961, but in 1972-’73 the production exceeded 137 000. The production cannot keep pace with the demand.

In the Cape we have Jonkershoek and we have the Lakes’ nature conservation station. There is wonderful work being done at Rondevlei and Swartvlei in the form of limnological research. Research work on fish and estuarine biology is also undertaken. Interestingly enough, research work is also done on mullet. These fish spawn in seawater, but they are then transferred to fresh water in which they do very well. This technology has been imported from Israel where mullet are taken from the Mediterranean Sea to the Sea of Galilee where they grow rapidly. They are harvested in the Sea of Galilee for commercial purposes.

We also have the Amalinda warm water fisheries station and we also have Pirie station for the hatching of trout. The hon. the Minister should be particularly aware of these stations because they fell under his control when he was the Cape MEC in control of nature conservation. The Cape provincial administration is also doing work at the Hartswater irrigation scheme on small reservoirs and irrigation dams. They have done very successful research into the multiple use of reservoirs. The FDC is doing work on aquacultural research. They concentrate on oysters at Knysna and on prawns in Natal. They are also doing research on black museels and eels culture.

There are also other avenues which will have to be looked at. There is for instance the question of seaweed. We are now growing seaweed to a very small extent since we are only beginning with it. In France, however, they have imported brown pacific seaweed which grows 13 metres in eight months’ time. This is a fantastic rate of growth.

The real problem in our fishing industry is that we are fishing at the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th links of the food chain. The effect of aquaculture is that it shortens the food chain. To produce one ton of tuna meat, the food chain consumes 10 000 tons of algae, but a cow has an efficiency rating of 1:10 as regards the converting of food. We shall perhaps have to grow and produce plant material in the water—either fresh or seawater—and then we shall have to feed it directly to land animals in the same way that the krill which is being caught in the South Atlantic by the Japanese—they are spending $170 million on this experiment—is fed directly to land animals in Japan.

We are fortunate that we have a Minister who has been forward looking. He has obviously identified the potential. I think, however, that we shall have to examine the present arrangements and to restructure ourselves for the future. Let us, for example, take the matter of double jurisdiction. Estuaries are probably one of the most important elements in the fishing industry. There we have the situation that the impounded water is controlled by the Department of Water Affairs. The surface water is very often controlled by the provincial administration. The organisms in the water are under the control of the provincial administration’s Department of Nature Conservation. The ground surface of the estuary itself falls under the control of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The species coming in from the sea into the estuary fall under the Division of Sea Fisheries before entry. This is a matter which this legislation will allow us to rationalize. We must rationalize the situation. We have the same situation in respect of the Van der Kloof Dam where the Department of Water Affairs has given the surface water to the provincial administration for recreational purposes, yet we know that the Division of Sea Fisheries wants to use some of the water and some of the banks for “ponding” for the purposes of a pilot station for aquacultural research. We also know that the Cape Provincial Administration has exactly the same objective. I think we shall have to look at this situation and rationalize it. Perhaps I may make a suggestion. I think that the manner in which we can do this is for the hon. the Minister to take over a committee which is at present sitting under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture. I cannot speak for the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, but I am quite sure that the Department of Agriculture would welcome this committee being taken over by the Sea Fisheries people or the Chamber of Industries.

*The terms of reference of this committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. B. C. Jansen, are to investigate fish production in farm dams and impounded water. The following aspects are relevant—

1. (1) To collect and to co-ordinate all available results of research into and knowledge of fresh water fish production;
2. (2) to plan the production of fresh water fish on a sound basis;
3. (3) to identify areas of research requiring attention and to indicate the most suitable organization for such research;
4. (4) to investigate the economy of production and marketing possibilities of fresh water fish and to make recommendations in that regard; and
5. (5) to devise methods of imparting available knowledge to fish farmers.

I feel the department will welcome it if the hon. the Minister takes over that committee as well. The committee has sat twice, and the committee can be extended. I think that is the essence of a very good idea.

†Finally, let me say that I think we have the exciting prospect of using excess thermal heat from power-stations like Koeberg. Two-thirds of the thermal heat generated in such power-stations is lost in the cooling process at the stations themselves. This applies equally, of course, to our other power-stations, but it is particularly the case with atomic power-stations. There is enormous potential at the Koeberg power-station for mariculture. I know that the department is interested in that and I wish them well with that scheme. I think it could become a very important pilot scheme. Who knows, we may soon not only be eating Koeberg prawns …

Koeberg bokkoms.

… but even Heunis prawns. The hon. the Minister could invite the hon. member for Moorreesburg to come and enjoy some prawns with him.

Finally, I should like to sound a word of concern. I am referring to the question of the preservation or conservation of fresh water resources and species. Since we are looking at the question of exploitation, right at the outset we should also decide—and this committee could look at that—what we want to conserve and what we do not want to conserve. The committee I have suggested could look clearly at that aspect. We can make inalienable that which we want to conserve and separate it from that which we wish to exploit. With water-borne fresh water effluents and air pollution the marine and fresh water ecologies are subject to large-scale assault. I think that we should also look at that aspect of things.

With those few words, let me say that this industry now stands on the point of expanding into an enormous industry, and we wish it well.

Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member for Moorreesburg made a very interesting contribution here today. He referred to something to which I think the department and the hon. the Minister should pay attention when new legislation is introduced next year. I am referring to the local availability of certain of our species of fish. A balance should of course be maintained between the local availability of fish species and the necessity of exporting those same fish species. Of course one thinks of the crayfish industry and the perlemoen industry. In both cases I think a balance should be maintained between local distribution and availability and the necessity of exporting those products.

Secondly he made a statement which in my opinion was very important when he said that the fishing industry should actually be regarded as a Coloured preference area. I agree with that wholeheartedly. In the past the fishing communities of the Cape consisted mainly of Coloureds. I think it is only in the past 10 years that there has been an invasion of Blacks from the homelands who have come to work in the fishing industry, particularly in the Cape Peninsula and along the west coast. I think that is wrong and if the hon. the Minister could perhaps arrange for specific measures or legislation to stop the employment of Blacks in the fishing industry, I believe it will be welcomed everywhere.

As usual, the hon. member for Maitland also made a fine speech. The other day in the Planning debate in the Other Place he also made an interesting speech mainly about the fishing industry. I think he is right that there is a duplication of activities and of control and also overlapping with regard to the various bodies and persons who have an interest in the sea on the one hand and fresh water on the other. In this regard he referred to the provinces, the Department of Agriculture and also of course the Division of Sea Fisheries. I agree with him and I hope that in the legislation to come it will be stated beyond any doubt in which areas the various bodies should function.

In his introductory speech last night the hon. the Minister referred to the necessity of new legislation. I welcome this. In my opinion it is high time that there should be a new Sea Fisheries Act. I think there are shortcomings in the existing dispensation and that the present fisheries legislation is either not implemented or does not work well in practice. With regard to the new legislation, I just want to say that I think the commission concerned that sat for five years did a very good job. I think that the recommendations in particular of that commission should be considered very thoroughly before the hon. the Minister introduces new legislation in Parliament.

I want to point out three of the most important recommendations. One was that a central fisheries board should be established which could then play a dynamic and leading role and that that board should have its headquarters in Cape Town. I made out a case for Cape Town the other day in another debate. I said that I thought it was virtually impossible for a Division of Sea Fisheries to function in Pretoria. I think the headquarters of any kind of Central Fisheries Board should be in Cape Town.

A second important recommendation of the commission is that a separate research institute should be established. I agree with that as well. At the moment various bodies and persons are doing research and this is very inefficient. I think it would be better if a separate co-ordinated research institute were to be established in Cape Town.

Another important recommendation of the commission was that the control of resources should be separated from, for instance, the research being done, and from the advisory council which exists at the moment. I fully agree. One of the greatest problems that the fishing industry is experiencing at the moment, is that there is ineffectual control over the resources, at all levels. I think the body controlling resources should also have a seat in Cape Town.

Do you mean as a division of the department?

Yes, such a body should have control over harbours, patrol work and the implementation of existing legislation. If the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Fishing Industry are accepted, three separate divisions will be created: a central fisheries council, a separate research institute, and a department for the control of resources, or a division which can undertake that control.

I want to elaborate briefly on the Bill at present before the House. I think it is appropriate that it be placed on record that the Fisheries Development Corporation is 34 years old today. The original legislation was piloted through Parliament in 1944. That says a lot for the foresight of the then Minister and Parliament, that the Fishing Industry Development Act was placed on the Statute Book so long ago. Ever since then the Act has been amended repeatedly and the powers of the corporation, better known as the FDC, have been extended. I think that up to now the FDC has fulfilled the function of a supporting organization for the fishing industry. The fact remains that the FDC played an important role in getting the fishing industry off the ground, actually giving concrete shape to the industry. South Africa’s fishing industry has developed to such an extent since the establishment of Viskor 34 years ago, that today it is one of the ten largest fishing industries in the world. There was immense post-war growth, so much so that some of the fish resources were exhausted and that there was great danger of the resources disappearing completely. Personally I think that the fishing industry, and especially the pelagic fishing industry and the rock lobster industry, has grown too quickly. The industrialists in the industry virtually went mad and concessions were handed out left, right and centre. Sea millionaires began to compete with gold barons, and that had tragic consequences for the fishing industry as a whole. Quotas have been pruned during the past seven years in both the crayfish industry and the pelagic fishing industry. I think this has been successful, but I think that the pruning was insufficient and that further attention should be given to this.

Viskor is an organization with particularly wide powers to enable it to serve the fishing industry in various areas. The Government is the only shareholder and therefore appoints the board of directors. The corporation’s real role is as a supporting organization in the development of the fishing industry. However, the fishing commission warned that care should be taken not to extend the role of Viskor too much. The commission rightly pointed out that various problems could be created, inter alia, that it might have a detrimental effect on the important development work of Viskor if the powers vested in the corporation in terms of the Fishing Industry Development Act were extended too far.

Therefore, I looked at this Bill in this light and came to the conclusion that this proposed extension does not go too far and is not contrary to the recommendations of the Fishing Commission. All this Bill really does is to consolidate the powers and the responsibilities of Viskor, and I do not think that the new powers are excessive. The most important new power is actually contained in clause 3. I quote—

“Aquatic plant” is defined as follows—

The Fishing Commission mentioned what the hon. member for Maitland rightly referred to as “mariculture”, i.e. the cultivation of plankton under controlled conditions. According to the Fishing Commission this has promising possibilities. This not only applies to plankton, but also to krill, which is a kind of animal plankton and which occurs in the Antarctic areas. The Fishing Commission was of the opinion that mariculture was actually not something which could be applied in the near future. In that respect I think the members of the commission were wrong, because the “near future” to which the report referred, is actually now. Mariculture is an urgent necessity at this moment. Because this Bill provides for the stimulation of mariculture and also aquaculture, it is all the more welcome.

†This Bill also refers to the role which Viskor can play in inland waters, i.e. the lakes and the dams which, as the hon. member for Maitland has said, have endless potential. Without any doubt—and this I have said in this House since I first came here— sea-farming is the thing of the future. There is famine in Asia and throughout the continent of Africa, and in the future there will be ever more famine. There are 2 billion people in the world who do not have enough to eat. Hunger kills millions of children under the age of five. Many of those who survive hunger in childhood, grow up mentally retarded and with mental deficiencies as a result of the absence of amino acids, which are found in proteins and the various marine resources.

The earth’s last great natural resource is the sea. It must be looked to for the provision of high-quality animal protein. It is perhaps not generally known that 80% of the earth’s animals live in the sea. There are 20 000 species of ocean fish, but man only hunts a few dozen of them. The world’s fish catch today exceeds 60 million tons. The problems of overfishing are world-wide and are not confined to our coasts. Some of the worst overfishing is in fact taking place in the waters of one of the best technologically equipped nations in the world, the USA. The problems of overfishing far outweigh the discovery of new sources of supply and new stocks. South Africa is threatened with overfishing. Reference has been made to this from time to time. The Fishing Commission made reference to it in its interim reports and in its final report as well, and I think everybody here should be aware of the extreme care that should be exercised to ensure that some of our resources are not eliminated altogether. We have also had overfishing not only on a local level, but also in the deeper seas—an intrusion by foreign vessels, which has now been dealt with by the powers which we have taken for ourselves to extend our fisheries zones to 200 miles. These foreign vessels have used technological equipment far superior to anything that we have in the Republic. They have, in fact, developed techniques so advanced that even the resources as far as 200 miles out to sea could have been eliminated had we not taken upon ourselves these powers. I think we should stop concentrating so much on hunting fish. We should rather move in the direction of farming fish. There have been some tremendously impressive results in aquaculture or mariculture in coastal waters. The sea is capable of competing with any farming on land. There is no system of agriculture which can match the marine farm for producing high calorie food. In Japan we have the world’s leader in aquaculture. With shrimps, for example, they achieve yields of up to 1 ton per hectare in special rearing ponds. Oysters are grown on ropes. This perpendicular growth of oysters yields 36 000 kg per hectare of oysters. Salmon and trout are cultivated in Japan and the United States.

Aquaculture also includes the cultivation of marine plants as well as animals. I referred to this when I dealt with the definition of aquaculture. In Japan one has more than two dozen edible types of seaweeds and in the United States there is a giant kelp which is the fastest growing plant known to man. Kelp itself contains more concentrated minerals and proteins than most other plants. I think it will become an ever more important source of nutrition for man.

World aquaculture at the moment produces 4 million tons, and there are many people who will tell you that that is just a drop in the ocean and that one can in actual fact probably produce 10 times as much as that.

I should say that we as a young, undeveloped country, a country which should not in future suffer exploitation from foreign sources too much, because we have more control over the vast areas of sea around our coasts than other countries are fortunate to have—we are isolated in that respect—should think in terms of intensive research into the field of aquaculture and mariculture. We should think in terms of sea ranches replacing landed ranches so that there can be large scale food production in the sea as distinct from at present only on the land. My question is: Without a Bill such as this and the new Bill which is to come next year, where will South Africa be? We are inadequate in the field of research, and I hope—I want to mention this again to the hon. the Minister—that the new Bill will make adequate provision for the consolidation of research functions in South Africa. In terms of this Bill there will be the ability to finance these embryo industries in aquaculture and mariculture to which I have referred in order to put them on their feet in the same way as the formerly flourishing South African and South West African fishing industries were put on their feet as the result of the activities of Viskor in the last 34 years.

Mr. Speaker, as always, the hon. member for Simonstown made a very level-headed contribution to the debate. I think he is an expert on this subject and that he has a great love for the fishing industry. Once again he has made a great contribution with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to refer to one or two of the hon. speakers before me before I come back to the aspect which the hon. member for Simonstown said was worrying him, viz. the wasteful exploitation of our fishing resources.

At the beginning of the debate, the hon. member for Moorreesburg had something to say about the utilization of fish. He also thought fit to say something about the KWV. I enjoyed it very much.

The KWV or the speech?

The speech. If there is something to be learned about the organization of an industry, I think that we can take a leaf from the book of the wine industry. The reason I am interested in his idea, is that the KWV is concerned about a levelling-off in the consumption of natural white wines. When one eats fish, one has a glass of white wine with it. Therefore, the more fish the hon. member for Moorreesburg can cause to be marketed, the more glasses of white wine will be drunk. In that way the white wine industry will also be promoted.

The hon. member for Parktown expressed very fine words towards the hon. the Minister and they are appreciated. Recently, I read in the Business Times section of the Sunday Times that someone thought fit to make an acrimonious attack on the hon. the Minister implying that he believed in socialism and advocated the idea that private initiative should be stifled. I am pleased and I thank the hon. member for Parktown for saying these fine words about the hon. the Minister. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister spoke about the commercial fresh water fishing industry. He said that Viskor is promoting development with the necessary finance and manpower in order to activate private enterprise to enter this industry. I therefore thank the hon. member for Park-town for paying this tribute to the hon. the Minister for what he is doing in this regard.

The hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech contained a few key words which I should like to dwell upon. The key words were: Control, or rather protection, good management, research and initiation of operations. The whole Bill is geared to placing this industry on a sound basis, because unfortunately—the hon. member for Simonstown emphasized this repeatedly—we are not yet able to realize the importance of the industry today. In the 33rd annual report of the Fisheries Development Corporation, I quote the following from page 2—

I find the following words disturbing—

The central idea is contained in the words “a bruising year” which the local fishing industry also experienced, according to the corporation’s report.

This drop in the catches means, inter alia, less food for the people, less fish meal and fish oil for industries and that many more people have a lower income and consequently may feel the economic recession far more than others. I have no financial interest in the fishing industry, but it is important to me that we in this House should take a standpoint in connection with the expansion and not the wasteful exploitation of the industry. I want to say something about that in a moment.

It is a well-known fact that the world population is increasing. It is also a well-known fact in South Africa that our agricultural land is not increasing, but decreasing, and that except for 4% of it, it does not have a great deal of potential as agricultural land. It is well known that food has become an important diplomatic weapon. It is well known that foreign exchange is valuable to us. That is why we must expand the fishing industry, not only to provide food, but also to earn exchange.

Viskor was established—this is being envisaged in this legislation and, we hope, in the consolidating legislation next year too-in order to make this food, which is rich in protein, a source from which we can be fed for many years to come, by means of scientific exploitation, development, study, utilization and protection.

The next matter that I want to refer to, is the declining catches which cause us a great deal of concern. All of us learned about piracy as school children and of the dangers and disadvantages attaching to it. Fish piracy—uncontrolled exploitation of the fishing industry—is just as dangerous an activity as piracy was to the people at sea in earlier times. Let us look for a moment at a few figures indicating how the catches along our coast have been affected during the past four or five years. I am not saying that every case was one of uncontrolled exploitation. The hon. member for Simonstown referred to fish millionaires and there were probably more cases where fish were purposefully caught without any attempt to prevent extermination. What do the figures show? In this regard I shall now refer to the latest available figures, viz. those for the years 1973 to 1977. Of course, the quotas have shrunk due to the action of the Ministry and consequently the total catches have also declined. Here in my hand I have documents which were provided to me by the department, in which I am told that the total catches in the Republic of pelagic fish from 1973 to 1977 dropped from 451 415 tons to 357 228 tons, which is almost 100 000 tons less. There was also a drop in the Walvis Bay sea area for the same period. As far as pelagic fish in the Walvis Bay sea area are concerned, in 1977 alone there was a drop of 27% in comparison with the figure for 1976. The sardine quota was cut and the catches declined by 50 000 tons.

As far as the rock lobster industry is concerned, I am informed—and I feel this is an important figure—that not only are the catches poor, but there is also a danger that the resources of the West Coast rock lobster grounds may be over-exploited. In this regard I should like to give a few figures just by way of information. As far as rock lobster is concerned, no quotas have yet been established in the South Coast rock lobster grounds off the Republic of South Africa, but in South West Africa there is a tremendously sharp downward trend in the 1977 catches in comparison with the previous year.

As far as the volume of rock lobster is concerned, in the last four years there has been a drop from 912 000 kg to 557 000 kg, a drop of 400 000 kg in that specific regard. I express my concern about the fact that there has been a drop, and I want to ascribe it not only to the reduced quota but also to the fact that concessions have been abused a great deal in the past. The purpose of the abuse was to exploit.

Since South Africa extended its fishing zone to 200 nautical miles in terms of the 1977 legislation, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot tell us whether there is a possibility of obtaining funds for building at least one multi-purpose deep sea research vessel as soon as possible in order to supplement the existing research fleet, which in my opinion is rather antiquated. Locating and determining the economic extent of any new or existing source in the deep sea, as well as new methods and techniques of catching, will only be possible through research. This is the joint task of the Sea Fisheries branch, of Viskor and of the relevant department of the hon. the Minister.

In this research task, of course, there is the need for a suitable research vessel or vessels. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister can inform us about this and tell us whether there is a possibility of obtaining such a vessel or vessels in order to carry out our research effectively.

In conclusion I want to give the Bill my support. I shall motivate the amendment to clause 1, to which I referred, briefly during the Committee Stage. We are all delighted that the hon. the Minister is taking this progressive step. It enjoys our wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester has dealt with matters relating to the deep sea. I must confess that every time I ever go deep sea fishing it seems that I contribute more to the sea than the sea contributes to me. Therefore, I will leave that aspect to the hon. member for Worcester. [Interjections.] I should like, however, to follow the hon. member for Maitland. He has dealt with the question of the encouragement and the financing of aquaculture, fish culture and fish farming in our streams, our rivers and our estuaries.

First of all, I want to point out that there are two areas we have to consider. One is our warm water areas, and the other the cold water areas. There is a very clear distinction among the sorts of fish which can be produced in both these areas. There is also a very clear distinction in the markets, something we have to identify. If Viskor is going to interest itself in this, I think it is one of the subjects to which they will have to give a great deal of attention. The question of financing and the question of extension work both need being looked at.

I have always said—it has always been my point of view—that food is power. We in South Africa, with our advanced technology and with our ability to absorb technology from other areas, are in a position to build up an impressive food stock which can stand us in very good stead indeed in relation to our neighbouring countries. However, that carries with it a certain amount of public education in order to convince the local population of the importance of fish as a food. The hon. member for Maitland quite rightly said that the people in the Transvaal can produce, and that they can in fact sell more than they can produce in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand area. However, I do not think the same can be said of the rural areas. What the case is in our neighbouring countries, I do not know, but I think it is important to realize that the need for protein is much more clearly identified in the rural areas than in the Witwatersrand area because of the difference in income level. If we are going to fulfil what I regard as the basic motive of this, we will have to attend meticulously to the feeding of people in our rural areas, people with a low level of income. They are the people for whom the protein need is so immensely greater than for people in our urban areas. If I may simply deal with the question of eels, I must confess that I have never eaten an eel in my life.

Now you are talking!

Well, it is regarded as a delicacy. In overseas countries eels are regarded as a delicacy. There are people who pay big money for eels.

They are nicer than bokkoms!

They are better than bokkoms. [Interjections.] Eels swim up and down our rivers all the time. There are millions of them.

I have caught them this big and that thick, but I have never eaten one in my life because I think I tend to associate myself with the Zulu people on the farms.

Have you ever eaten a bokkom?

Never! I have never eaten an eel either; so they must be the same thing. The point I want to make is that amongst the Zulu population the fish is regarded as being a very close relative of the snake and they will not eat it. It is ’njoga. They will not touch it. I think there is a tremendously important factor we have to take into consideration here. We have to do extension work among these people to convince them of the benefits of this source of protein that can be made available to them from fish farming.

I want to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention the question of pollution. If one is going to have extensive fish farms, one is going to have to clean out the dirty water and water that has been used. The same applies to feed lots when one is feeding cattle. There is the immense problem of run-out and wash-off in that regard. We will have the same sort of thing with fish in water which has been used, with fish having been fed all sorts of food. I must say that the idea of fish farming appeals to me. It seems to me that one can either feed them on mealie meal or liver or something like that. Feeding them on red meat appeals to my friend, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, because then they will not compete so strongly with the meat industry. The provincial administrations will obviously have to be very closely consulted indeed.

There is also the disease factor. I do not know what research has been done on the diseases amongst large concentrations of fish. It is, however, a very serious problem indeed because we know that on particularly hot days in the Camperdown-Cato Ridge area the chicken broiler industry has lost up to 28 000 fowls per day, an area which would be ideal for this kind of fish farming in Natal. I think this is something we are going to have to take a very close look at indeed.

I should also like to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention the question of trout breeding and an export market for trout. In our country we market trout that has come from Denmark and Japan, but in our country we have immense resources of cold fresh water, e.g. in the upper areas of Underberg and its environs. This is where trout farming can take place on a big scale. I know myself that one of the big organizations in the milling industry and in the poultry industry are moving into the fish farming industry for the breeding of trout. I think that it is a question here of research. I saw a cutting in a newspaper the other day. It described a trout in Great Britain weighing something like 35 pounds which one needed both arms to hold. It had been developed by line breeding research in a particular area in Great Britain. We tried to get the eggs to bring out to some of our trout breeders in the Underberg area, but I think we ran into some kind of a problem. It does not seem as if we have been successful in getting those eggs out. Just think of it! Possibly we could market trout steaks off fish of that size. If we could do so, I think we would create for ourselves a very big market indeed, not only here but also overseas.

I must say that I have something of a problem about the idea of fish farming in the deep sea. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister might be able to tell me something about that. I know, for example, that our seas off Natal are so rough that I cannot see us doing the sort of thing that they do in Japan where they lay out areas in the sea where fish can be bred and concentrated. I think we do have a very serious problem in that regard. This means that if we want to do the sort of fish farming that they do in Japan, we are reduced to resorting to the estuaries, and the hon. member for Maitland quite rightly said that in that regard there is a multidepart-mental problem. I just want to point out that if we are going to use the Japanese type of aquaculture we are faced with a certain problem, certainly in Natal and I also imagine in every other estuary throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. Today there is already a very important recreational industry based upon the exploitation and use of those lagoons and estuaries. Again we are going to have to find a way of dividing up authority and preserving certain areas for this if it is ever to take place. Let me tell the hon. the Minister, however, that at the very outset one is going to be faced with prejudice on the part of the public. I am thinking particularly of St. Lucia. If one starts cutting off areas of St. Lucia for this kind of thing, I think the people themselves are going to be very uptight about it indeed.

I want to end by saying that I believe, in view of the pressure on our fresh water resources—there is undoubtedly an immense pressure since we are told that by the end of this century every drop of fresh water in South Africa is going to be committed to somebody—we have to look at a new use of fresh water. No consideration has been given to this at all. I wonder whether we ought not to look at it from the point of used or waste water, perhaps processed water from sewerage plants or from wherever it may happen to come, which does not have to go through the human chain again. I think we must look at all these activities very, very carefully indeed. I think this is a very exciting possibility and the fact that we now have an organization which can fund and undertake extension work and research work, is of the most immense significance for the food processing and producing sector of the population of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their contributions and their support of the legislation. It seems to me that when we discuss economic affairs or its facets there is a greater degree of unanimity among hon. members than when other subjects are discussed. All the contributions made by hon. members were positive and they will excuse me if I do not reply to each individually, but instead single out certain important general principles to which they have referred.

Looking at the Bill, one has to draw a distinction between the aims of the corporation, and the powers it has wherewith to achieve them. In this connection there are a number of clauses of the Bill which I should like to deal with because they are of cardinal importance in this specific regard. The first is clause 3 of the Bill, which specifies the aims of the corporation. However one cannot read clause 3 in isolation since clause 5 further extends the powers.

Then there is clause 4 which specifies the powers of the corporation which enable it to achieve its defined aims as provided in clause 3. As I understood hon. members’ contributions in this regard, there is not one of them who had any objection to the powers as defined in the clauses in question. Nor did they object to the powers wherewith to achieve them as defined in clause 4. In this regard I am now referring specifically to the hon. member for Parktown. I think he agrees with me that in general, this is a correct summary of the situation.

The hon. member went on to refer to clause 36. I want to deal with this first and then come back to the more philosophical part. I want to say at once that I understand the reservations he has mentioned in regard to clause 36. I do not think there is anyone who would differ with him in principle on this point. However I want to explain it as follows. With this legislation we have a transitional stage from the old dispensation established under the Act of 1944, to the new dispensation envisaged by this Bill. When the corporation performed any act in terms of its powers, it acted lawfully. It is also true that in the exercise of its powers, or of some of them, certain formalities are prescribed which must be complied with so that the powers may be carried out correctly.

†I hope the hon. member follows the argument. Let us for the moment look at this clause where it provides for the transition stages. The relevant clause is clause 36. Let us just look at that. I think we must look at it very closely. Subsection (1) states that—

Subsection (2) is very important because it is an operative provision. It provides that—

i.e. the laws to be repealed.—

In terms of aims the corresponding provision is contained in clause 3 and in terms of powers, in clause 4—

The hon. member submitted that he had no problem with this. His problem is with the presumption that is created in subsection (3). Let us look at that subsection. I think it is fair that we should look at it. It provides that—

We must remember that clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill correspond to those sections—

What does this mean in all fairness? It means that here one is creating what I would call a “presumption of the legality” of those actions.

*It is important to bear in mind that this subsection does not try to legalize an unlawful juridical action. That is to say, there is the proviso that a juridical action which was regarded as lawful, fell or falls within the scope of the powers of the corporation. In other words, if the corporation performed an act which did not fall within the scope of its powers as defined in sections 3 and 4 of the old Act and clause 4 of this Bill, then such an action is not now lawful in terms of this clause. If the corporation performed an unlawful action it could not be legalized under this clause. However, where the corporation exercised power under sections 3 and 4 of the 1944 Act, but omitted to comply with a specific formality, that omission will be condoned under this clause. That is what is stated here. The hon. member will understand that there could be instances where this did occur. Indeed, I want to say in all fairness that I am personally aware of cases where this has in fact happened. That is why this specific clause was inserted. As far as this clause is concerned I want to request hon. members’ support because all it does is to condone any omission in regard to a formality or technical act which had to be complied with in the exercise of a power. Therefore, in all fairness, there is nothing sinister in this clause. However I concede at once that this is not the kind of legislation one likes to see. I hope he understands the position in this specific regard.

I now want to deal with the general discussion. All the hon. members who took part were in agreement as regards the importance of the industry. All hon. members agree that to secure this specific asset of this country for the future, certain things are required. The one is that we should balance the use of the asset with its capacity. Determining its capacity requires research and knowledge. I consequently wish to stress what I said at the outset, viz. that the rational exploitation of these resources—indeed, the exploitation of any of our natural resources— requires, in the first instance, highly specialized knowledge of the resource itself. There is only one true basis on which this knowledge can be acquired, and that is research into the resource itself: Research into the physical environment of the resources concerned, knowledge of the industry itself, and the interaction of the two factors, together with sound management and control, to which the hon. member for Worcester and other hon. members referred. This is of cardinal importance for the proper conservation and utilization of a resource such as this one.

What is, secondly, very clear, is that hon. members are in agreement that we are now entering a new era as far as the fishing industry is concerned—as is in fact also stated in the Bill at present before the House. As far as the extension of powers is concerned we are now moving in the direction of the freshwater fishing industry and also in the direction of the plants themselves. I do not intend to repeat hon. members’ speeches in this regard except to say that we shall understand that when we move in a new direction we must, in the first place, do so with the greatest circumspection. It is true that there are various other bodies, apart from our own department, concerned with and holding responsibility for the fishing industry in the interior and in inland waters. Such bodies are the provincial administrations. When I was younger I was in charge of the Division of Nature Conservation under whose jurisdiction the fishing industry and the whole nature conservation effort fell. I want to say at once that as far as inland fish are concerned, the provincial administrations have done really important work in regard to research; and have also done important work in regard to the development of fish resources in our inland waters. I want to give the assurance at once that I have not the slightest intention of taking this function of the provinces away from them. I think, too, that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services also has a responsibility in this regard, within the bounds of its technical and financial resources. I therefore want to agree with the hon. members that it is essential, in order to achieve the aim we set ourselves, to ensure that we co-operate, rather than tread on each others’ toes on the path that lies ahead. I undertake in the first place that we shall exercise this new power with the greatest circumspection. In the second place, it will be done in the closest co-operation and co-ordination with the other bodies which also bear a responsibility.

The second point I want to make relates to that which the hon. member for Parktown referred to, and to which the hon. member for Worcester reacted. By way of repetition I should like to state my standpoint in this regard. I think we must free the economic life of the country from restrictive measures, for example rules and regulations which no longer serve a useful purpose. In the second place, we must understand that the economy of the country can be as free as possible, but that it cannot be absolutely free. Thirdly, we must understand that in the normal course, the State has a regulatory function when the various sectors in the economy, in the course of their functioning, come into conflict with each other. Consequently it is the task and the responsibility of the State to reconcile those conflicting interests among the sectional interests, with the national interests. Consequently no one can argue about the fact that this responsibility does rest with the State, nor are hon. members arguing with me on that score. In the fourth place, it is also understandable that in certain cases the State will take initiatory action, inter alia, for strategic considerations. As far as I know there is no hon. member who disputes that point. If an enterprise is of such a nature that private capital cannot initiate it, or if the risk factor is too great, then in my opinion the State has a responsibility to perform and it would be neglecting its duty if it were not to perform that responsibility. In the fifth place, the State must create the climate in which the private sector can function with the greatest efficiency. Hon. members have already referred to the fact that Viskor is itself one of the finest examples of how the services rendered by the State can be initiatory and supplementary to those of the private sector. Therefore I am pleased that the hon. member for Parktown said that in this specific instance there is a field in which the State must play a role, and that no one can argue about that.

The hon. member also referred to the issue of the private shareholders. I should like to inform him that provision was made in the original legislation for participation by the private sector. However, this did not occur. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that if and when this should occur, I shall want to give them representation on the board. There was not the slightest doubt on this score.

The hon. member also wanted to know from me whether the question concerning the issue of debentures would be regarded as loans. The reply is “yes”, and in the nature of the matter, preferential shares will form part of the capital. Therefore there are no further problems in this particular connection.

The hon. member also referred to the clause conferring on me the power to permit a dividend to be declared and said that it was a very short provision. In this connection I just want to tell him that that is how legislation ought to be drafted. After all, as it stands one can understand what is being stated, and it is unnecessary to battle through it. The hon. member added that the debt ratio of 50:50 was a reasonable one. In this regard I agree with the hon. member. That, too, is why we amended the legislation in this way. The hon. member will probably concede that I have replied to him in full and that his reservations concerning clause 36 ought now to be allayed. For the moment I shall leave the matter at that.

I now wish to deal with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Moorreesburg—I almost called him “the hon. member for West Coast”—and I think we should …

It is one and the same.

An hon. member says it is one and the same. Perhaps we should ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior whether he had not better change the name of that constituency. The hon. member raised an interesting subject. When he began to discuss the three industries of the Boland, inter alia, fish and wine, I would never have thought that the third was wheat. [Interjections.] However, I concede to him that it could serve as a substitute for the product of the Boland which I had in mind. What I had in mind forms part of a song about the Boland which concerns girls, not wheat. As always, this hon. member came up with a refreshing new idea. In the first place he requested that there be greater co-ordination between the Government’s research division, the Fisheries Research Institute (F.I.R.I.) and Viskor. I wholeheartedly support the hon. member in his appeal that we should not act fragmentedly and that services should not be duplicated by the various bodies. If there is one real deficiency in the South African system—and when I say this I do not refer to fish alone—then it is the fragmented action which is caused by the conferring of responsibilities on various bodies and persons. In this regard I agree with the hon. member and I shall do everything in my power to bring about the necessary co-ordination in this regard.

This brings me to the arguments raised by the hon. member for Simonstown. I do not want to bind the hon. member to a specific locality at this point; I want to discuss the principle of what the hon. member referred to. The hon. member for Simonstown supports the hon. member for Moorreesburg on the point that sea products such as crayfish and perlemoen are readily available. If we were now to start de novo to exploit the marine resources then I should not arrange that the control and the awarding of rights to do so, should remain as they are now. I am being quite honest towards hon. members when I say this. Unfortunately I am in the position—hon. members will understand why—that over the years, vested rights have developed in terms of the provisions of the legislation. I cannot deprive the people of their rights now, and therefore I have to reconcile the ideal situation with the reality to which I am bound. Hon. members must please try to understand this. Earlier on I indicated that I was going to introduce legislation to amend and replace certain provisions of the Sea Fisheries Act. There is no point in having legislation which one is unable to implement, and at the moment I cannot have the legislation fully and effectively implemented. Consequently I am going to take steps to make the implementation of the law more effective, and I do not think there is a single hon. member who will not agree with me in this regard.

Our marine resources are almost on a par with diamonds; they are very valuable, but it is difficult to deal with the offenders in this regard and I think hon. members know it. The ingenuity of offenders amazes me. I think an example must be made of the offender who is in fact caught and it is my opinion that the quotas of anyone who oversteps the conditions should be endangered. That is the only way in which one will really put a stop to these infringements. I am going to take upon myself powers in this regard and I hope that I shall enjoy the support of this House in this particular regard.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg said that because companies were concession holders, two obligations could be imposed on them. The one is that they must invest part of their profits in defence bonds. Although I agree, I do feel that this is in any event a moral obligation, and the hon. member will agree with me that I cannot impose conditions as to where companies must invest their profits. However, I think these people should take cognizance of the very fine sentiment expressed by the hon. member. The second obligation concerns the employment of Brown people.

†Let me immediately make a correction in this regard. The hon. member for East London North drew the conclusion from what the hon. member for Moorreesburg had said that the hon. member was referring to those Black people who were entitled in terms of section 10 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945 to stay here. The hon. member for Moorreesburg did not do that. He was referring to the augmentation of those by migrant labour.

Only migrant labour?

Yes. I just want to correct the record otherwise it can be said that the hon. member for Moorreesburg made statements which he did not make. The hon. member for Moorreesburg, I notice, approves of the explanation I just gave.

My own sentiment in this regard is that this is naturally an area where there must be a preference for the Coloured people. We have not only left it at an expression of a policy or a philosophy. As a Government we have gone further and have, in fact, said that we will give decentralization concessions to industrialists and entrepreneurs in the western Cape provided their industries are built on the labour of Coloured people. I think all hon. members should support two ideals: the geographical balanced development of our country and, secondly, the bringing of labour opportunities to where the labour is. Although we may differ in terms of political philosophy, I think we must agree on those things which are being done for the benefit of all the people. I share the view that there must be a preference for the Coloured people in this area. In fact, I also believe that we will have to look more closely at the issue of permits for more Black labour to augment Coloured labour in the western Cape. I do not in all cases—I want to qualify myself—believe the statement that the Coloured people are not fit for certain jobs. If they are not, we shall have to make them fit. The answer lies in education and training. We must not accept the inevitable, as people suggest we should do. I think that is wrong.

I agree with the hon. member for East London North that we have to try to strike a balance between control and conservation. It is correct to say that we have extended our powers in terms of section 5 of the Act. In all fairness to the hon. member I want to say that in terms of clause 23 the corporation will also have the power to control certain facets of the inland fisheries. I want to give him the assurance now that that is not the intention. He will see that they can only do it, in terms of clause 5, with my permission. I shall naturally not allow that permission to be granted for these reasons, because what I want to achieve, is the extension of the facilities and expertise of the corporation to assist the private sector with the establishment of a commercial inland fishery. I do not want to take it over. I think that all the evidence of the last 34 years shows that we are not trying to do so. I think that concludes my answer to the observation made by the hon. member.

*The hon. member for Maitland spoke very knowledgeably. I have no reason to differ with him. I want to tell him that I think that there is great potential in the idea to use the water of the power stations for the purpose to which he referred. My officials and also those of Viskor have in the past undertaken inspection tours to the East to investigate this matter and the possibilities in this regard.

The hon. member added that I should take over the committee from my colleague of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. He will understand that I cannot furnish him with a positive or a negative reply in this connection. However, I want to undertake to have a discussion with my colleague with a view to co-ordinating our efforts so that we do not move in different directions. I think this is important.

I am very appreciative of the record of the hon. member for Simonstown of interests in the fishing industry. I want to tell him that I think his efforts have been very fruitful, and that applies to us as well. Although it has not always been possible to endorse or implement his standpoints I can tell him now that I think he can congratulate himself in one respect, namely that his contributions have strengthened and not weakened this industry. The hon. member referred to the various facets of the recommendations of the Du Plessis report concerning a central fisheries board, a central research institute and control of resources. In the first place—the hon. member for Worcester also referred to this—we require research equipment and a ship. I want to tell him at this point that I am doing everything in my power to have that ship built this very year. However, we do not only need a research ship, we also need patrol services and patrol boats. I must get these, or else I am wasting money. It is pointless for me to spend money on research alone.

We can make one patrol boat from False Bay available. It is not doing anything in the Bay.

The hon. member can come and discuss the matter with me privately. However, it has a bearing on that. It is of the utmost importance that we should not simply carry out research and impose control of resources and then find that we cannot enforce it. For that reason we must also strengthen the patrol services. I shall try to do this.

The hon. member went on to make a very interesting speech about fish farming, not only in inland waters but in the sea as well. I cannot speak on this matter with authority— and I say this to the hon. member for Mooi River as well—but the fact is that we shall investigate all the possibilities and then apply those which can appropriately be utilized in South Africa.

I have already referred to the various aspects to which the hon. member for Worcester referred. I agree with the hon. member for Mooi River that we need food not only to bargain with, but also as a national asset.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It has already become the practice among bodies with legislative authority, i.e. Ministers, Administrators, provincial councils and local authorities, in regulations and by-laws of a technical nature, to prescribe requirements in legislation as contained in the standard specifications of the S.A. Bureau of Standards which were published in the Gazette in terms of the Standards Act, 1962. In such legislation the method then adopted is to refer only to the number and date of such a standard specification without republishing the entire specification in the legislation concerned.

Although there is no objection in principle to this method of legislating and it in fact enhances efficiency and reduces publication costs, the different ways in which enabling power is granted to bodies to act in a legislative capacity in this way has complicated its implementation.

Consequently I approached Parliament last year for the insertion of section 23A in the Standards Act, 1962, in order to make provision, on a uniform basis, for the necessary authority in connection with the incorporation of the rules and provisions of any code of practice and standard specifications for the purposes of everyone concerned. The relevant section 23A formed part of the Standards Amendment Act, 1977, which was published in the Gazette on 6 July 1977.

†The original modus operandi of the SABS, in conjunction with the Department of Industries, who was aware that certain important specifications were published before 6 July 1977, was intended to update and republish these specifications after 6 July 1977. This was done with a view to making the provisions of section 23A also applicable to the relative specifications, thus enabling the incorporation thereof into legislation in terms of this section. The cost of the republication of these specifications at that stage would have amounted to approximately R20 000.

However, before putting section 23A into operation it was decided to determine the importance to other interested parties of specifications other than those included in the preliminary estimate. These parties were invited to inform the SABS to what extent they have legislated by way of the aforementioned method of reference to standard specifications. This survey indicated that the incorporation of specifications in this manner occurred to such an extent that if all the specifications concerned had to be republished the cost would have increased to approximately R60 000.

In these circumstances it has been decided that an amendment be introduced to section 23A(1), as is proposed in the Bill now under consideration. Acceptance of this amendment will ensure that section 23A will also apply to the specifications published in the Government Gazette prior to 6 July 1977. This procedure would be less expensive, but at the same time a more efficient way of dealing with this matter.

As section 23A, as amended, will apply to specifications published prior to 6 July 1977, it is considered necessary that a transitional clause relating to existing incorporations of such specifications, be included in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with the greatest diligence we have had the necessary authoritative documents referred to and scrutinized to see whether there is anything at all we can say about this Bill by way of criticism or appreciation, but alas, we could find nothing. We are therefore quite prepared to support the Second Reading this afternoon.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 12B(3) of the Internal Security Act, 1950, and section 185(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, provide that a witness may be detained until the criminal proceedings concerned are concluded, or for a period of six months, whichever may be the shorter period.

A clear deficiency in the provisions has now become apparent in practice in that essential witnesses sometimes have to be released before they are able to give evidence. The duration of criminal proceedings cannot be controlled. Witnesses are frequently subjected to long cross-examinations, and adjournments, for example to afford advocates an opportunity to consult, occur regularly. In this way the proceedings may therefore last longer than six months. Thus the entire object of the detention of witnesses may be defeated.

In the Bill it is now being proposed that a witness in any case may be detained until the proceedings are concluded, but if such proceedings have not commenced within six months from the date on which his detention commences, he shall be released. Therefore it will only be possible to detain witnesses for longer than six months if the circumstances of the proceedings so require.

Mr. Speaker, from what the hon. the Minister has just said, it is clear what the object of this Bill is. To be more specific, the object is to make it easier for the State and for the prosecutor to have witnesses present when their evidence is required in a case. But a serious new principle is involved in this Bill, and that applies to both clause 1 and clause 2.

As the hon. the Minister has already intimated, clause 1 deals with matters concerning the security of the State. These are sometimes referred to as political cases. However, this is not necessarily always the case. Clause 2 refers to other crimes, crimes of a very serious nature.

It is necessary to dwell for a moment on the history of these two clauses. As I have already said, the first deals with cases concerning the security of the State. This principle was introduced in 1976. The principle concerned is that if the Attorney-General is of the opinion that a witness will be required as a witness in a case of this nature, he may be detained in custody for a period of six months. This is the position, of course, when, in the first place, the Attorney-General is of the opinion that the possibility exists that the witness concerned may be tampered with— that is the word which is used—by the accused or by friends of the accused who may possibly influence the witness to give evidence which differs from the evidence which he originally intimated he would give. The second possibility is that the witness may abscond. Therefore, if the Attorney-General is of the opinion that such a possibility exists, he may take the necessary steps in terms of section 12B(3).

It may, of course, also be the case that a witness is in danger and that the Attorney-General is of the opinion that for the sake of the safety of the witness himself, it is necessary to keep the witness in custody. The object of that, in other words, is to ensure the safety of the witness. There are also other similar considerations. All of these, however, are connected with the ends of sound administration of justice. But if we assume that the witness concerned is not guilty of any crime himself …

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the discussion is not about the principle of detention. What is involved, is the duration of the detention.

Mr. Speaker, I intend linking it directly to that because, as the hon. the Minister said, there is a difference between the position as it has been up to now, and the position which is now being envisaged. The discretion in connection with this matter is exclusively in the hands of the Attorney-General. No sensible and informed person would have reason to say that he had no confidence in the discretion of the Attorney-General, but the Attorney-General himself is bound—I should even say his hands are tied—as far as the matter of exercising his discretion under these articles is concerned. From the bottom, if I may put it that way, he is committed to the information which he obtains from the police, the detectives and others, as well as to statements by witnesses submitted to him. From the very nature of things he himself cannot conduct an investigation. If errors of judgment were to be made in submitting information to the Attorney-General, the possibility exists that he will err in exercising his discretion. In addition to that, he is bound from the top by the Minister of Justice himself, because the Attorney-General exercises his discretion subject to the guidance, the control and the directions of the Minister of Justice. Therefore, he is not a free person as far as this is concerned. So what is the position of this official—because that is what he is? He is bound from the bottom and from the top, and his hands are tied to a large extent. Now that official may order the detention of a witness for a period of years. There is no question now of such detention being limited to a period of six months only. If a criminal trial commences within six months of the first detention of the witness, and that criminal trial continues for a period of two or even three years, which is not inconceivable, the witness may be detained for that entire period and it may appear in the end that he is not a person who is able to make a material contribution to the administration of justice.

At the same time the Attorney-General may prevent him from being visited by anybody but Government officials. The Attorney-General may even prevent legal advisers from seeing him while he is in detention. Most important of all is the fact that access to the courts for such a witness, is excluded altogether. In other words, no matter what may happen to him during those six months of that year or those two or three years, he may be detained in solitary confinement. As such, he may be totally deprived of the legal aid to which innocent citizens of the State are entitled. That is the objection which we have in respect of clause 1.

Clause 2 gives us similar problems. In clause 2 we are dealing with a substantial change in the position as it was in terms of the provisions of Act No. 51 of 1977, which is generally known as the Criminal Procedure Act. In terms of section 185 of that Act, it was possible for the Attorney-General, in the case of serious crimes which did not involve the security of the State, to order that a witness be detained. But very substantial proviso’s were linked to that. Such a warrant could be issued only by a judge in chambers on the basis of an affidavit or any other information which such a judge might require from the Attorney-General. Only then could the warrant be issued for the detention of such a witness. In other words, here one has a particular exercising of discretion, because the judge is not necessarily bound to anything submitted to him by officials, and he does not have the hon. the Minister of Justice who can exercise any control over his decisions. In terms of the new legislation, the period is being extended indefinitely. So we now have a peculiar position in respect of clause 2. A witness whose detention has been authorized by a judge, subsequently has no access to any court or Bench, and possibly not even to his legal advisers. In fact, the author of Swift’s Criminal Law terms this, as it originally read: “A radical new section.” He also states: “It gives the Attorney-General a very wide discretion to issue a warrant of arrest”. Now, as a result of clause 2, the period is being made indefinite, because here, too, it is a question of a case possibly continuing for a very long period of time. So we have a paradox. A situation commences with the assistance of a judicial discretion, and it is continued without any reference to a court. Prior to 1965, in other words, prior to this provision coming into operation, the position in the old traditional court proceedings was totally different. Then the position was not that any officers outside the open court could have a witness placed in custody in this manner. But in 1965, and even more so in 1978, we are faced with the Government’s plan to exclude the courts altogether as far as this matter is concerned. The Government is prepared to have a witness detained incommunicado, without any right of recourse whatsoever to the courts. There are, however, certain questions which we must put in this regard. Firstly, why is it possible in cases of serious crimes which have to be tried, at least to introduce a judicial element into the case, while it is not possible to do so in respect of cases involving State security?

Surely that principle was decided a long time ago.

Order! I pointed out to the hon. member before that that principle had already been adopted. Time is the only issue involved here.

Mr. Speaker, as it may please you. Secondly, why is there no outside limit to the possible detention of a witness, for example for a period of more than six months or more than a year? In other words, should there not be an opportunity for such a witness, after a certain period has elapsed, to apply to a court for relief? I say this because here we have an extraordinary measure which is a serious infringement on the rights of possibly innocent citizens of the country. The question of the bona fides of the present hon. Minister of Justice does not enter into the picture, nor the question of the bona fides of the present incumbent of the office of Attorney-General.

What is important, is that this measure has been placed on the Statute Book. It creates a precedent for an infringement of freedom rights and it remains on the Statute Book into the distant future. It is possible that other Governments, other officials and dignitaries will be able to and will have to implement this Act, but then the precedent has already been created. In my opinion this new provision is going to make a very unfavourable impression on all, both inside and outside South Africa, who make it their business to criticize South Africa. It seems to me as though the Government, and especially the hon. the Minister of Justice, has possibly not considered the implications of the proposed provisions in the most responsible manner. If that had been done, I am sure other methods would have been found—I am convinced of that—to change the impression created by this and to make it appear more favourable. In my opinion we here have a reflection on our courts and on the handling of difficult cases. That is unnecessary. The only thing the hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech, was that problems had arisen. At all criminal trials, problems arise. Thousands of people who are in fact guilty, are acquitted because there is not sufficient evidence. These are simply the disadvantages of the sound administration of justice. The manner in which to rectify this, is not to introduce legislation of this nature, but to try to maintain a balance between the pure administration of justice on the one hand and the essentials of the situation as they present themselves, on the other hand.

In conclusion, I want to say that we are opposed to this legislation. We cannot support this, because the infringement goes too far. I also want to put it to the hon. the Minister of Justice that he will not improve the legislation by disparaging me.

Who disparaged you? You disparaged yourself.

I never attacked the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, one should like to welcome the hon. member for Johannesburg North to the ranks of the legal men in the House. After the debate on the Justice Vote had already been disposed of, he suddenly came to light and decided to enter this arena.

He has awakened from his hibernation.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North tried to draw a parallel between, on the one hand, the ostensible distinction between the proposed new provision contained in section 12B and section 185(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and, on the other hand, the actions of the Attorney-General who is ostensibly bound in the exercising of his discretion. He also said that the Attorney-General is exclusively dependent on the information which may be made available to him by the police and that on that basis he has to exercise his discretion and make his decision. However, the hon. member went further and in that particular respect condoned the other element in section 185(4) ostensibly because a judicial officer would be involved in it. However, the details which the police make available to the Attorney-General are the same as those which ultimately find their way to the judge in chambers. In such circumstances, a decision must therefore be made on the basis of exactly the same details and the same facts. In the exercising of discretion, surely what is involved in the first place, is the exercising of a judicial discretion. When the discretion is exercised, it is exercised subject to certain provisions. It is not done arbitrarily.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that, as I have already told the previous hon. speaker, only the period in question is under discussion here. The principle has already been adopted.

That is correct, but what is involved here, is the principle of the exercising of the discretion provided for in section 12B and also in section 185(4). As far as the detention is concerned, the discretion is exercised by the Attorney-General, and in the other case, it is exercised by a judge on the basis of certain particulars which are placed before him by way of an ex parte application, after which the detention order is issued. But in respect of the release of the person detained, the discretion rests exclusively with the Attorney-General. That applies to both section 12B of the Internal Security Act and section 185(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

What is involved here is the extention of the period for which the person may be detained as a witness, and the release of that person. The proposed amendment provides that the person must be released the moment the criminal proceedings are concluded. In the nature of things, that provision brings nothing new. The other provisions which are on the Statute Book at present, read that the witness may be detained for a maximum period of six months, after which he must be released. The amendment relates to this period of six months. After the expiration of the six months period, the release of such a person is effected, if necessary, by the Attorney-General, who can also effect his release before the expiration of the six month period. If the case were to continue for a longer period, the Attorney-General has the right, in both cases, to release such a witness if he is not required any further for the purposes of the case of the State.

In the trial of cases where offences are committed in a group context, especially political offences in which it seldom happens that only a single individual is involved, and also the so-called gang actions in which serious crimes are committed, it is of course true that these cases have certain implications which extend the duration of the trial. As the Act reads at present, it can happen that such a witness has to be released on the last day of the six months of detention, despite the fact that the case has not yet been disposed of. It might cause the trial to miscarry if the witness were to abscond or if harm were to be done to the witness either by the infliction of injuries or by other forms of intimidation or threats. In that way the proceedings miscarry from the point of view of the State.

In essence, the measure does not really embody a new idea or principle which is being introduced into the legislation, for in both cases the idea is that the proceedings must commence within a period of six months, just as is provided in the old Act. At the same time the object of the measure is to prevent the witnesses, who are central to the State’s case, from being afforded an opportunity, once the proceedings have commenced, of removing themselves from the scene or absconding, and thereby leaving those who have to handle the case for the State at their wit’s end.

It is interesting that the Official Opposition should want to oppose this particular measure. But this action should be seen against the background of the general attitude which that side of the House adopts. It is an attitude which has as a result that in measures of this nature they want to drag in political elements to promote their image as the so-called champions of human rights and human freedoms, freedoms to which the hon. member for Johannesburg North referred.

But the hon. member goes even further and states that the action which is being envisaged in the measure, would be a reflection on the courts. That in itself is, of course, an entirely novel point of view, because no matter how hard I try, I cannot see how the courts can be involved in this. When a case is before the court, then naturally the court has nothing to do with any prior actions, whether by an official or by a judge as required in section 185 of the legislation. These are allegations which are deliberately made to do damage again to the high regard and appreciation which exists for the objective judiciary in South Africa. It is also an action which is aimed at ridiculing the entire basis of the administration of justice in South Africa. The hon. member asked whether access to the courts should not be given to witnesses who are detained in this manner, so that the question of their further detention may be thrashed out by the courts.

It is now necessary for us to consider what this is based on. According to the provisions of section 12B, a judicial officer is never involved. According to the provisions of section 185(2), he is involved for the first time when he issues an order for the detention of such a person. However, the merits of the detention have already been disposed of then. All that therefore appears from the motion by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, is that it should merely be pointed out to the other judge that the case is still in progress. At that stage the merits of the case cannot again be evaluated. In that respect, it is therefore important that regard should be had to the background against which the hon. member would like to have an improvement brought about in the state of affairs.

These extentions, as contained in the proposed amendment Bill, have the exclusive object—the hon. the Minister has already indicated that—to eliminate a practical deficiency which exists. It is a practical situation which can very easily resolve itself and which, in itself, cannot aggravate the position of any detainee. This further detention is again subject to several other provisions of the legislation. Some of these provisions provide for the detention of such a witness if he is in fear of his own life or if he fears intimidation from outside. Through his terrified actions such a witness can thwart the entire process of legal proceedings, and this fact then brings us to the basic crux and to the totality of the provisions as contained in sections 12B and 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has therefore added nothing new to the debate, and he has also revealed no basis for his argument that further changes should be effected to this provision. The hon. member was also unable to furnish any reason why this legislation, as already adopted in principle in the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977, should not be proceeded with. Therefore the hon. member simply indulged in a useless and aimless logic-chopping for the mere purpose of sitting on the Opposition side by virtue of his office.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down must forgive me if I do not follow on what he has said, because I shall in fact be covering the same points that he has covered. At the outset I should like to say that we believe that it would be irresponsible, given the original principle—which you have ruled that we may not discuss—of detaining witnesses and given that a trial has already started and is in progress, to release a witness who would be giving evidence in that trial and who has already been detained while the court is in progress and he has not as yet given his evidence. In the light of that I should also like to refer to what I said during the discussion of the Police Vote, i.e. that we in this Parliament and in this country must be seen to support our police. It certainly must be very heartbreaking for a policeman to have his entire case destroyed because of the abscondence, intimidation or perhaps even the murder of a witness in a trial that is taking place. Having said that, the next question which we must ask ourselves, is how we should ensure that this particular detention, or further detention, should take place and what procedures should be gone through before the witness could be detained for a period longer than six months.

In order to be able to further my argument in this regard, one must first of all realize that the Bill is dealing with two specific Acts: with the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 and the Internal Security Act of 1950. In these two Acts there are two different principles of detention involved.

Firstly, I should like to deal with clause 2 of the amending Bill which is before us today. This clause deals with section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977. In this particular instance the situation is that a witness may only be detained for specific reasons and in connection with arson, murder, kidnapping, child-stealing, robbery, housebreaking with intent, conspiracy, incitement or attempt to commit any of the first-mentioned offences. Section 185 of the Act further provides that such a person can only be detained if the Attorney-General is of the opinion that the personal safety of such witness is endangered or that he may abscond, be tampered with or intimidated and, if he is of the opinion, secondly, that it is in the interest of the witness or the administration of justice that he be detained in custody. It is furthermore provided that the Attorney-General has to go to a judge in Chambers, and the person who is authorized to detain that witness for six months—or until the conclusion of the trial as the Bill now stands—is in fact that judge himself and he is the only person who can issue a warrant. His decision is final and he may specify the place of detention. Section 185(5) provides that the Attorney-General must consent that persons, other than officers of the State, must have access to that witness, and subsection (6) very importantly says that a magistrate must visit the detained witness once a week. These are all very important principles. We have here very clearly established that it is a judge in Chambers who makes the decision in this particular regard. While he is in prison, the witness is able to draw witness fees for the whole period, and it is further provided that all matters affecting application shall be in camera and there shall be no publication thereof. In the light of these particular provisions in section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act, clause 2 of the Bill seems to us to be a reasonable extension of the detention which, in the first place, is made by a judge.

We must, however, also realize that clause 1 of the Bill deals with the Internal Security Act. In this regard we have unfortunately a totally different situation as regards the original detention. The two main differences are in our view: Firstly, is the Attorney-General himself who makes the decision—he does not have to put it before a judge in chambers—and, secondly, section 12(c) of the Act specifies that the number of offences in regard to which a witness can be detained, can simply be extended by proclamation. It is not necessary to come back to Parliament for it to be extended.

So, here we have two very different principles embodied in provision as to how a witness should be detained. The one principle is embodied in the Criminal Procedure Act and the other in the Internal Security Act.

What the Bill which is before us basically does, is to seek to extend the period of detention from six months to any period longer, provided the trial concerned has started before the end of the six months, and provided also that that trial continues. It could be for a year, two years or longer. We can see the difficulty the hon. the Minister of Justice has and the reason behind why he is doing this, but we cannot agree with the way in which he is seeking to do this. Where a judge rules that a witness is to be detained in prison, the Minister is seeking to make it automatic for a particular detention order or warrant to be extended for as long as the court case lasts. We certainly do not believe that this is the right way to do it. Secondly, he is doing the same in terms of the Internal Security Act. The Attorney-General, having made the original decision on the issue of an original warrant, can extend that warrant for a period, which is not defined except by the conclusion of the court case concerned. Once again we do not like the idea of this or the way in which it is to be done. I therefore move as an amendment—

To motivate this amendment I firstly want to remove any possible objection hon. members on that side might have. It might be argued that this case is tried in front of the presiding officer in camera and not in open court. This does not hold water, because the situation is that the Attorney-General will have to prove to the presiding officer not what evidence the witness is going to give, but simply that the personal safety of the witness could be in danger, that he might abscond, that he might be tampered with or intimidated, or that it is in the best interest of the witness or the administration of justice that he should be detained. I do not believe that the Attorney-General, in putting his case for the further detention of a witness, will be canvassing the evidence to be ultimately led in court in the case concerned. I therefore believe that such an objection falls away.

If this Bill is amended so that at the conclusion of the six month period for which the original order is issued—unfortunately we cannot propose an amendment to that as it is not being considered in the House at this stage—at least the best we can do in terms of the Bill before us is ensure that if a witness is going to be detained longer than the six month period, the Attorney-General has to go to the officer presiding in the trial, which should already have started if he is to be detained—a judge or perhaps a magistrate will have been appointed to hear the evidence in the trial—and place his evidence, in terms of which he believes the witness might be intimidated or abscond, in front of that presiding officer, who should be the only one to issue a warrant that such witness should be detained for longer than six months.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal at once with what was said by the hon. member for East London North, and specifically with the amendment he has just moved. The hon. member is wide of the mark. The objection is not that a separate trial should be held in camera or should perhaps be held at all; the objection amounts to this—and I think if he will consult the hon. member for Johannesburg North, he will tell him …

You will wait a long time for a verdict.

Let me first put something in perspective. The hon. member for Johannesburg North might not have been a brilliant judge, but he did deliver sound verdicts. He had good advocates who advised him from time to time. The objection to this amendment is precisely that the judge is influenced by evidence which must of necessity be placed before him and which will probably not be placed before him during the course of the trial. That would amount to a miscarriage of justice. It cannot be otherwise. The judge cannot even be influenced by what is written in the papers. That is, after all, why we have the sub judice rule. If, then, he obtains certain information otherwise than in the course of the trial, it is prejudicial to him. [Interjections.] To confine ourselves to the amendment—the essential objection raised in connection with section 12B is that the discretion rests with the Attorney-General. That is the position in the existing principle. I cannot understand why there should be an objection to this. I think it is also necessary at this stage to refer hon. members to Hansard, 1977, and I quote column 4230. The hon. member for Houghton was speaking …

If it is true that this is how they see the existing provision, why should they raise the objection at this stage? If that was their interpretation, then the amending motions before the House at the moment restrict their interpretation. Then surely it means that if the person is released after 180 days, he cannot be detained again.

As regards section 185(4) and their objection that the judicial officer is being deprived of his discretion, that is surely not correct either. The judicial officer exercised that discretion when he issued the warrant. It is he who had to give the order. He was au fait with the facts. He gives that order, knowing what the basic contents of the case are, and with due observance of the fact that this case may possibly continue for a long time.

At this stage I want to refer to a report on this proposed amendment which appeared in The Argus on 17 May. I just want to quote a portion from this second leader under the heading “Another infringement”. The editor stated—

Surely it is not true that these cases in effect continue for an indefinite period or even for an unlimited period of time. We have never had such a thing. This is the first time that we need this measure. That is also why this motion is now before the House.

In this second leader it is also written—

In the light of my earlier quotation from the speech by the hon. member for Houghton— and if one accepts that the hon. member for Houghton and the editor of The Argus are of the same opinion on this score—it is simply not possible to make this sound plausible.

Yesterday, a leading article appeared in The Cape Times under the heading “Detaining witnesses”. Therein, it was stated—

Why should the police be dragged into this? I raise the question whether this is a mistake or whether it is a mistake or whether it is a deliberate attempt again to harm South Africa by dragging in the police by the hair as far as this legislation is concerned. There was indeed a minor correction. It was in this morning’s issue of The Cape Times. Under the heading “A-G’s, not police”, there was a minor correction and it was stated that the matter had been brought to the notice of The Cape Times. I really wonder whether people who write about these things day after day, can inadvertently make such a mistake, and whether they would have published that correction at all if no pressure had been exerted upon them to do so.

What is the object of this legislation? In the first place, it is, after all, to ensure that witnesses do indeed give evidence. It makes no sense to detain a person for six months and then to release him with the result that he will not be used. If that is the case, he ought not to have been detained in the first place. It is, in fact, one of the objections by the Official Opposition, and also by the leftist Press in South Africa, that people are detained without trial, that people are detained without their legal representatives having access to them. What the Official Opposition—and consequently the NRP as well—now want here, is that even after a case has already commenced, a person who has already been in detention for six months, should be released if he has not yet started to give evidence. Is that fair? Is that sound administration of justice?

However there is more to it than that. What is involved, is the protection of the witnesses concerned—on the one hand for the sake of the security of the State, and on the other for the sake of the detainees themselves and their own safety. It has often been stated by such detainees who had testified—and in many cases of course this will not be published— that the fact of their detention in terms of section 12B, was the reason why they were still alive today. That is only logical. The motive for murdering such a witness is precisely in order to prevent him from giving evidence. The possibility of an attempt on his life after he has given evidence—the revenge motive—is not as strong as the innate desire on the part of the detainee himself to remain alive. We must not forget that his life is possibly at stake.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North stated, quite correctly, that trials may take a long time. But to try to imply that this will be the general tendency—and I am not referring to verdicts, but to the trials themselves—that court proceedings may now last for two years or longer, is not correct either. It has also already happened that in a case which had been partially tried, the judge died just before he gave a verdict. In such a case the case must then be heard de novo.

What happens in such a case? What happens if a case which has already lasted for four or five months, has to be retried? Should the witness who is being detained, then simply be released? My question is: What is the Official Opposition accomplishing with their opposition to this particular Bill? I have already quoted to indicate that the hon. member for Houghton is under the impression that these witnesses can be detained indefinitely in any case.

Well, I was told that that was not the case.

The hon. member says she was told that that was not the case. The hon. member has never said that in this House. She has never caused that to be said through the Press outside this House either. The impression which is spread abroad is that this is indeed the position. The foreign Press writes from time to time that people may be detained for 180 days and that when they walk out, they may again be detained. If the hon. member really believes that that is not the position, it is high time she brought it to the attention of those people.

The whole system is rotten! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that the intention with the opposition to this legislation is simply to bring it to the notice of our enemies. If those people had really been interested in our State security, and had really cared for South Africa, they would have accepted the legislation in the knowledge that it is a normal and essential measure to cause the administration of justice to take its proper course.

In conclusion, I should suggest a further idea to the hon. the Minister for consideration. I want to suggest that in all cases where witnesses are detained in terms of section 12B or section 185, it should be accepted as a principle that they should be heard in camera.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randburg will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. There are a few other matters to which I wish to refer.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North must correct me if I am wrong, but I got the distinct impression that he was conveying the thought that the Attorneys-General were bound both from the bottom and the top. He gave examples of how they were bound from the bottom and from the top.

*He used the words “They are bound”. Is this a precise rendering of what the hon. member said?

I have explained what I meant.

The hon. member says he has explained what he meant.

†Mr. Speaker, in saying that, the hon. member is casting a serious reflection on the Attorneys-General and their integrity. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has had a wealth of experience. I want to ask him whether, in his past experience, he has ever found an occasion when an Attorney-General has allowed himself to be dictated to, and where he has not acted fairly and justly. [Interjections.] Let the hon. member for Johannesburg North answer the question.

I have already said that; you do not understand Afrikaans.

I understand Afrikaans perfectly; just answer my question.

†Mr. Speaker, the Attorneys-General in South Africa have a fine reputation, and the hon. member for Johannesburg North is doing himself and our legal system a grave disservice in talking as he has done about our Attorneys-General and in reflecting upon their integrity in the way he has done this afternoon.

I did not reflect on their integrity.

The hon. member said: “Hulle is gebonde.” This is not a Bill which would find favour with us under normal circumstances, but we contend that we are not living in normal circumstances; in fact, we contend that we are living in the most abnormal circumstances.

You helped to make them abnormal.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that we helped to make them abnormal. If ever an hon. member in this House has made circumstances in South Africa abnormal in the political field, then it is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.] This legislation seeks, inter alia, to protect witnesses for a longer period. We have heard in the past of the intimidation of witnesses and the murder of witnesses. A witness is a person who does his public duty by giving evidence and he is entitled to protection for as long a period as is required. To impose a longer period of detention, the Attorney-General must be of the opinion that there is a danger of tampering with, or of intimidation of, the witness, or that the witness may abscond, and he must be satisfied that longer detention is in the interests of such a person or in the interests of the administration of justice. On the basis of his subsequent decision on those aspects, such a witness can be detained. I do not know what the hon. Official Opposition finds wrong with that. It is basically for the protection of the witness and for the administration of justice.

His job may be ruined.

That hon. member says his job may be ruined. I shall come back to that issue because I have a specific suggestion to make in that regard. I also want to point out, however, that the first amendment relates to extremely serious offences. One only has to look at the schedule where treason, sedition, etc., are mentioned. The State has a responsibility for the well-being of a witness because if the witness is injured or murdered the State is blamed. The Bill further protects the interests of witnesses, and we have full confidence in the fact that no judge or Attorney-General would detain a witness for any longer period of time than is absolutely necessary. I want to know whether the Official Opposition is, in fact, suggesting that an Attorney-General or a judge would detain a witness for longer than is absolutely necessary because that is implicit in their arguments.

The acceptance or rejection of this Bill depends on one’s attitude towards State security. The rule of law can survive only if there is law and order in the country. If there is no law and order in the country, the rule of law will not survive and one will have anarchy and chaos.

There is, however, one thing I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. When people are being detained for these longer periods, one may find that some of the witnesses are the breadwinners of their families. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister: If a family is in difficulties because the breadwinner is being detained and is perhaps not receiving an income from his employer, is there any assistance the State can afford him? If there is no assistance the State can afford him, I should like to suggest that the Department of Social Welfare be asked to assist in that regard.

Order! I have already said that the hon. member should confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have made my point. [Interjections.] I will, of course, obey your ruling.

†In conclusion I want to say that we believe in State security and law and order, and as such we shall not oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate, albeit very limited in its scope because the Bill only seeks to amend two clauses, one in the Criminal Procedure Act and one in the Internal Security Act.

I am very interested in the attitudes taken up by different hon. members in this House today. The hon. member who has just sat down has professed unlimited faith in the Attorneys-General.

Don’t you?

I do not have unlimited faith in anybody, including myself, let me tell the hon. member. [Interjections.] Everybody is fallible.

And the Leader of the Opposition?

Everybody is fallible, everybody including that hon. member’s Prime Minister, my leader and the leader of the NRP, and as I say even myself, and that is saying something! I believe that the only protection a citizen has against the fallibility of individuals is to simply abide by the normal processes of the law as they have evolved over the centuries from the time of Magna Carta onwards, especially in regard to the embodiment of the sacred principle of habeas corpus. I am amazed that there are members sitting on this side of the House who profess to be bound by the principle of habeas corpus, who embody that in the principles of their parties, and say they are against detention without trial but are prepared to support a measure which extends the existing provisions of two Acts that allow the locking up of people without trial, for that is what it is, no matter how one tries to disguise it. One can call it protecting the witnesses, one can say one is protecting society because the man may abscond and so on. It is not a question of someone deciding, rightly, whether this man should be held without bail. That is the normal process of the law when a man is detained until he is tried. That I can understand. In this case, however, we are not even dealing with an accused person but a witness in a trial. Such a man may now be detained indefinitely until the trial ends, for that is what it means. Some of these trials, as some hon. member has already said, can take months, indeed, years to conclude. We have records of trials, particularly the so-called security trials, that have literally taken years to complete. During that time the witness sits there. To anyone who uses the ridiculous argument that it is for the protection of the man, I want to ask: What happens the day after the trial ends? Who cares what happens to the witness then? He can get his throat cut the next day and nobody will turn a hair, but as long as he is in gaol to give evidence on behalf of the State, he has to be protected. He is indeed protected in such a way that he is held incommunicado. Hon. members have forgotten this. There is no provision that demands that he have access to anybody. I was in the House in 1965 when the 180-day Bill was introduced, which had this very clause although it was then section 215bis.

You are redebating the principle of this.

No, I am not redebating that. I want to point out, however, that when this was debated at the time, members raised the argument that these witnesses would be allowed to receive visitors and would be treated like people awaiting trial. Indeed, the hon. the Minister who introduced the provision at that time said indignantly: What, me ill-treat a witness? That is absolutely unthinkable! I want the man to give evidence for the State. I would not dream of ill-treating him. However, there are instances of witnesses coming to court and complaining that they have indeed been ill-treated.

Order! I do not think that that is under discussion.

Well, Sir, may I say that the longer one keeps a man in detention without trial and incommunicado, the more he is ill-treated. Indeed, keeping a man in solitary confinement is in itself ill-treatment. Even if not as much as a finger is laid upon the man, the fact that he is held indefinitely incommunicado, in solitary confinement, is ill-treatment. That has been established by psychologists, medical men and experts in criminology.

Here we are dealing with two sections of existing laws that are being amended and this extends the period of solitary confinement to months on end whereas previously, at least, there was a so-called recognized limit to the length of time a person could be held. Irrespective of whether this involves the police, the Attorney-General, the Minister or whatever other individual—it does not really matter who the official is—in the end the person is in the hands of the Security Police and nobody else. The hon. the Minister himself recognized that fact when he objected to my raising the question of section 6 of the Terrorism Act, under which people are held incommunicado, when the Justice Vote was being discussed. He said at the time that that was purely a police matter. This, basically, is also a police matter.

The hon. member for Walmer waxed indignant that anybody should cast aspersions on the integrity of Attorneys-General. He added that we are living in difficult times. We were living in difficult times last year. I do not think the times in 1977, or even in 1976, were very different from what they are now.

You are living in a dream world.

Well, Sir, only last year that hon. member voted for an amendment moved by the then member for East London City to exclude “Attorney-General”.

Last year I was not in the same party.

May be it was the year before then. Where was he then? Messing around somewhere?

He has changed principles since then.

Anyway, the hon. member is on record as having voted in favour of the amendment moved by the then hon. member for East London City. If his attitude is strange—for he is really a strange person and I do not have to explain his actions in the House—the actions of the NRP are stranger still by far. These people opposed the original Act of 1965 …

What, the NRP?

I can mention them. They were the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Durban Central who was here at the time as well.

I thought you were talking about the NRP.

Wait a minute. Those are the same hon. members.

Ah!

I do not care what their party is called, but these hon. members opposed that measure. The main reason advanced for opposing the provision was because it was included in what was known as the 180-day Bill. The hon. member was only too pleased that I could not level the same accusation against his party as I was able to level against them on the 90-day detention clause because they actually opposed the 180-day detention clause at Second Reading …

What about Japie?

Never mind about Japie. [Interjections.] Japie is going to oppose this Bill again today. You do not appear to understand my argument. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is being absolutely consistent.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill after she has answered the question.

May I ask the hon. member whether the basis of our opposition was that it removed the judicial process from the decision?

The hon. member who spoke on behalf of his party at the time, the former hon. member for Umhlatuzana, said: We have now come to the most objectionable clause in the Bill.

Order! I am not interested in that.

Very well, Mr. Speaker. He was, so I answered his question.

Now read our amendment.

I am surely entitled to comment on the fact that hon. members are taking a completely different attitude today …

Our attitude is exactly the same today.

… on the identical provision which is, however, being extended and made worse.

We are bringing it before a judge which is what we argued then.

I am sorry, that is not what the hon. member did. They opposed it in principle.

We still oppose it. Read the amendment.

They also voted against the clause when they lost the vote on their amendment. Will the hon. member now support our amendment when they lose the vote or their amendment?

We do not know what your amendment is.

Because of this clause I am going to move that this Bill be read this day six months.

We have already moved that.

When the hon. member has moved it, it will be put and the vote will be lost. What I would now want to know is whether he will take the same course of action that he took—and his name is on the voting list; I will give him the Hansard column number if he wants it—in 1965 and again in 1976 and 1977.

Of course we will oppose it.

Well, oppose it.

We are opposing it for a very definite reason. We do not just come with blind opposition.

Will the hon. member then tell me why an article appeared in The Cape Times as recently as Thursday, 18 May, under the heading “NRP backs detention for protection”? Has the hon. member changed his mind since then?

It was a totally inaccurate headline and if you will read what he said, you will find it.

Will you read the contents please?

The reports reads as follows—

Look at what our amendment says.

Right, but the vote on your amendment is going to be lost. Are you then going to vote for the detention of witnesses?

No.

That is what I want to know. Well, then you should never have said what you did to the newspapers because their headline is absolutely correct.

It is not correct.

The headline reads that you back detention for protection.

Did you write it for them?

It appears that the report was written by the political staff, and I am not employed by The Cape Times although I am open to offers! [Interjections.] We have absolutely nothing good to say about these two amendments.

You have nothing good to say about anything.

We have nothing good to say about them whatsoever. We believe that it is unjustifiable to lock witnesses up under any circumstances. I challenge the hon. the Minister—who has become very cocksure these days since Dr. Rhoodie and his celebrated case took the heat off him, because that is exactly what has happened—to tell this House if he knows of a single Western country where there is terrorism—for instance like the IRA in Britain, or in Israel where is also terrorism—which is combated by the application of a law which allows witnesses to be locked up until a case is actually concluded, or locked up at all unless it is just a question of no bail for an accused; but of course an accused is not a witness, so I withdraw that part.

I want the hon. the Minister to point out to me a single instance of a civilized Western country—not a country behind the Iron Curtain, that a country like Cambodia or Chile or these other countries with their double standards—that purports to believe in the rule of law and habeas corpus yet permits the locking up of witnesses for an indefinite period of time and permits their being held incommunicado. There is no such instance. South Africa is unique in this respect. It is no good hon. members on that side of the House blaming us for the bad name South Africa has overseas, because that bad name stems from the rotten legislation that is introduced into this House, for example the legislation that we are now discussing. That is the answer to that. We are going to vote against this measure, because we can see no reason why the hon. the Minister should demand powers enabling him to hold people for an even longer time than he can at present.

Another factor which makes this measure objectionable to us, is its retrospectivity. I was amazed to hear the hon. member for East London North say that the fact that a man was already in detention was one reason why he could not be let loose. This is one of the reasons why I say this is a retrospective law. In most Western countries retrospectivity is regarded with the utmost disfavour. In America, in fact, it is unconstitutional. So for the hon. member for East London North to therefore advance that as a reason for their giving their partial support to the measure…

Come on Helen, attack the hon. the Minister, in heaven’s name!

Do not start crying! As a matter of fact, that hon. member’s name is also on my list. I also have a list and he is mentioned there as one of those who voted against the clause that allowed the detention of witnesses when the Criminal Procedure Act was amended. [Interjections.] Was the hon. member not in the House two years ago?

Yes, I was here.

Why does he then deny it? His name is on the list of people who opposed section 185 which this Bill now seeks to amend.

What has that got to do with this Bill?

This Bill is amending that section. Does the hon. member not know that? This Bill is extending the provisions of section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act which the hon. member opposed at the time. Those provisions are now being extended but the hon. member is now partially supporting this. I find this quite incredible. Let me see if I have anything more to say. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Houghton whether in fact—I do not believe she has said this, and if she did, I did not hear it—she will be supporting our amendment?

Of course not! Has the hon. member read it? Shall I read it to him? It says—

We do not recognize that in any circumstances it is necessary to detain witnesses. We are against detention without trial and, as I understood it, that hon. member’s party was also against detention without trial. They have said so over and over again and they also said so in the course of the general election.

We said subject to judicial processes.

No. The hon. members have stated quite categorically that they are against detention without trial. We are against detention without trial and therefore we cannot support this amendment. We shall have to leave the House when that hon. member’s amendment is put, because we are certainly not voting with the Government on this Bill. We shall then come back to vote for our own amendment. That is exactly the way we shall do it.

We shall miss you!

With regard to the issue of witnesses getting fees, I would very much like the hon. the Minister to tell me how much the State has paid out to people who have been held in detention, originally always under the provisions of section 6 of the Terrorism Act, let me add. When they have singled out the sheep from the goats to ascertain who are going to be State witnesses and who are going to be the accused, the State witnesses are held in detention under the provisions of section 12B of the Internal Security Act, and I wonder how many of those people ever get witness fees? Perhaps the hon. the Minister knows the figure. It will no doubt be some round figure running into hundreds of thousands of rand! Whether these people are given witness fees or not, however, their lives are disrupted for months on end and their reputations are ruined, because the minute a man is detained under any security legislation, his chances of again getting a job—because he usually loses his job while in detention—are absolutely nil. Such a person is already branded as a criminal, as a man who is against the State, even if he ends up ultimately giving evidence on behalf of the State.

The hon. members should not think that this does not affect many people; it does. I have bothered to look up the figures. I might say that the provisions of section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act are being used less and less, because using them is a bit of a nuisance as one has to go to a judge in chambers, and there are a few restrictions in this regard. In the five-year period up to 1975, 69 people were held under section 185. The hon. the Minister gave me figures—I think it was 60 or 70—of people who were held under that section in the last two to three years. However, under section 12B of the Internal Security Act which is now being extended, 118 people were detained in 1976, and 313 people in 1977. So, the hon. members must not think for a moment that these provisions affect a handful of people. 313 people were detained in 1977 and as at February 1978 the hon. the Minister informed me that 95 people were still in detention under section 12B of the Internal Security Act. It is now the middle of May and I have no doubt that the figures have gone up since February. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will give us that figure as well. The hon. members must realize that hundreds of people are affected. Their lives are disrupted, their family life ruined, their jobs lost and their reputations under question. I think it is absolutely unbelievable that parties professing to be in opposition and professing to be against detention without trial should support this measure, even partially. So, I wish to move—

Mr. Speaker, as you have already ruled, the scope of the Bill under discussion is very limited; but please permit me to refer briefly to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I have known the hon. member for Johannesburg North for many years. As a young student at the Pretoria University already, I paid frequent visits to the hon. member’s home. But at that time I visited him in his capacity as Commandant-General of the Ossewabrandwag. [Interjections.] What I want to say in this connection, is that the hon. member for Johannesburg North sounded far more convincing then than he sounded this afternoon. I have never heard him sound as unconvincing as he did this afternoon. Thereafter, as a young attorney’s clerk in Pretoria, I often delivered briefs on behalf of my principals to the hon. member, when he was still an advocate. Even then he was more convincing than today.

Was he still a member of the Ossewabrandwag then?

I am not sure.

What did the hon. member tell us this afternoon? Apart from the matter which the hon. member for Walmer has already dealt with, namely the dubious reflection which the hon. member for Johannesburg North cast on the Attorneys-General—a reflection which no one can condone—the hon. member …

You are talking nonsense!

… admitted in so many words that sound reasons could indeed exist for the detention of witnesses. He did that in conflict with what the hon. member for Houghton has just said. One can come to only one conclusion.

I do not think that I am doing the hon. member for Johannesburg North an injustice when I suggest that in his speech this afternoon, he stated that there could be valid reasons for detaining witnesses, but that there should be a limit to the period of detention. The hon. member can tell me whether I am doing him an injustice. The hon. member prefers not to hear me. I would suggest that the PFP should make sure what people they allow to speak in the House in a debate of this kind. We witnessed a manifestation today in that the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who has a certain amount of legal knowledge … [Interjections.] … spoke and was then followed by the hon. member for Houghton, who has no legal knowledge whatsoever. By virtue of his experience, the hon. member for Johannesburg North told the House this afternoon that there could be good grounds for a witness to be detained by the Attorney-General, but the hon. member for Houghton, on the other hand, said immediately afterwards that her party—I do not know whether she includes the hon. member for Johannesburg North in that reference— totally rejects the detention of a witness under any circumstances. I would suggest that that little party should obtain clarity on that matter among themselves.

You should read my Hansard and then apologize.

I shall read it. I now want to refer to the amendments moved by the hon. member for East London North. Two amendments are printed on the Order Paper which the hon. member most probably wants to move during the Committee stage. His second amendment proposes the amendment of section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act. After listening to the hon. member this afternoon, I could only conclude that he and his party placed that amendment on the Order Paper before they had properly considered the implications of this amendment Bill. He has discovered this afternoon that—unlike the security cases—in the other cases, a warrant may only be issued on the authority of a judge. Evidently he changed his mind in midstream.

I want to confine myself briefly to the discussion of two simple clauses. In terms of the Act—it is as simple as that—the Attorney-General may, in his discretion—in one case, he has absolute discretion, but in the other case this happens after he has applied to a judge—have the witness detained in terms of the provisions of the Act for either a period of six months, or until the case concerned has been disposed of, whichever period expires first. This means in effect that in the case of a partially tried case, which has not been disposed of within that period of six months, the Attorney-General has, in terms of the Act, no further discretion and is then compelled to release witnesses whose evidence is essential for the continuation of the case by the State. That is an untenable situation. When one is dealing with a partially tried case which cannot be disposed of within that period of six months, and it is essential that, subject to the discretion of the Attorney-General, witness should be detained until the case has been disposed of, it is a matter of plain common sense to anybody who knows anything about court cases, that this amendment should be effected to the Act in terms of which a witness may in any case—subject to the discretion of the Attorney-General—be detained until the case in question has been disposed of.

We have heard unpleasant stories from the hon. member for Johannesburg North in connection with cases which drag on for two or three years. We know of cases where judges took two years and even longer to deliver a verdict after the conclusion of a case.

Who was that?

I do not know; I simply hear of such cases. The allegation by means of which the impression is being created that it will often happen that criminal cases will drag on for two years, three years or even longer, is—in all fairness—simply not true, because we have judges and magistrates who are very intent on ensuring that the verdict in and the trial of any criminal case should be finalized as soon as possible. No judge and no magistrate who is worth his salt—and I hasten to add that I consider all our judges to be people who are indeed worth their salt— will allow any criminal proceedings to drag on unnecessarily. Unfortunately, as a result of the conduct of some attorneys and advocates who appear for those for whom the hon. member for Houghton is always the protagonist in this House, there are sometimes unnecessary delays in criminal cases.

We have heard absolutely nothing from either the hon. member for Johannesburg North, or the hon. member for Houghton, or the hon. member for East London North, which can make us change our minds that the present amendments now before the House, are absolutely essential in the times in which we are living.

Mr. Speaker, it is fairly evident from the speakers who have spoken before me that the question of extending protective custody for witnesses is a highly emotive and emotional issue. I shall not reply directly to the hon. member for Barberton now, because I would like to speak about certain basic principles involved in the extension of the prospective custody of witnesses before giving some attention to what the hon. member for Barberton and in particular the hon. member for Houghton had to say. Our attitude regarding the extension of the time period for which witnesses may be detained in custody has been exceptionally well motivated and justified by my colleague, the hon. member for East London North. It is evident that the whole question of keeping these people in protective custody goes to some extent against the ingrained values of civilization which so many of us value very dearly. However, I would like to point out, particularly to the hon. member for Houghton, that the world has changed. We now live in most unusual times, times when it is no longer possible to conclude court proceedings in the shortest possible time. There are many reasons for this. It is no good the hon. member for Houghton talking about stances which individuals may have taken four, five, six or even 10 years ago.

One year ago.

Since that time Concorde has arrived on the scene and it can cross the Atlantic in 3½ hours, compared with the six to eight hours required by other aircraft. The values held by people have also changed significantly. We find today that acts of terrorism take place all over the world. We only have to look at recent editions of the newspapers covering the saga of the Aldo Moro case in Italy to find that those people who are being prosecuted by the courts for heinous criminal and terrorist activities do not understand the basic principles of democracy and civilization. They are prepared to sacrifice themselves and they are prepared to take many other people with them, including the witnesses who are going to testify against them. We are dealing with an intricate, highly sophisticated twentieth century Mafia who will not stop …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I shall do that, Mr. Speaker. Regarding the extension of the time period required for witnesses to be kept in protective custody, I would like to repeat the words of the hon. member for East London North that it would be highly irresponsible to allow a key material witness in a court case to leave that particular case and possibly to abort the course of justice at a critical time when the trial is on.

How do all the other Western countries manage without that?

The other countries find themselves in very serious straits. They are unable to combat crime successfully, particularly heinous crimes, and their internal security leaves a lot to be desired.

Our attitude to the extension of this period, as indicated by our amendment, is that we recognize the necessity, in certain circumstances, for the detention of a witness in a trial in progress before a court. However, our amendment states that we decline to pass the Second Reading of the Criminal Procedure Matters Amendment Bill unless and until provision is made for such detention to be authorized by a warrant issued by the presiding judicial officer in such trial. I think there is a very important principle involved in this amendment, an amendment which I trust the hon. the Minister will take into account. That principle is that when one extends any measure which curbs the liberty of an individual, particularly a trial witness, justice must be seen to be done at the highest level. We are not casting aspersions on or detracting from the integrity and the values of the Attorneys-General, but we are dealing here with a fundamental principle which is so ingrained in freedom loving and democratic people that if we are to extend this period of protective custody, it must be seen that justice is done at the highest level. Therefore, we believe that it is absolutely essential that these warrants should be issued by the presiding judicial officer when dealing with the extended protective custody of a witness.

In the amendment we have recognized that we have to do with exceptional circumstances today, circumstances in which it is necessary to prolong this detention. One can debate for hours the cause and effect of this. Why is it necessary for the hon. the Minister to come to this House to ask us for these extensions of detention time? We must examine very carefully the question of cause and effect. Is what the hon. the Minister is proposing in this amending Bill an undue and unwarranted intrusion on the liberty of civilian life or is it a defensive mechanism because external forces are forcing us to do this? We believe this is the case. I think the hon. member for Houghton, who started to use her normal clichés, detracted from an examination of that principle of cause and effect. What did she say? She used the words “solitary confinement” and incommunicado. How can the hon. member for Houghton contend that this is the way that the police treat witnesses in protective custody?

Because we know it!

Of course, we know that!

How does the hon. member for Houghton know that?

From information by lawyers. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Houghton talks about “solitary confinement in the hands of security police”. These are the words which have been used to confuse the real issues here. The real issue is to ensure that justice takes its appropriate and valid course in the South African context of the situation. We believe very strongly that it would be irresponsible for any hon. member or any party in this House to abort the natural course of justice right at a time when a material witness is required to testify.

We then come to a further principle which this House can debate for hours. It is a principle, though, which is never referred to by the hon. member for Houghton or by her party. That principle is the question of what takes precedence these days. What takes precedence in the 20th century? Is it the freedom of the individual or is it the security of the State and all its people? [Interjections.] These are principles which we must debate when we consider the extension of the time during which witnesses may be kept in protective custody. The hon. member for Houghton—I do not know whether her figure is absolutely correct, but I take her word for it—says that 95 people are going to be affected by the retrospective clause in this particular amending Bill. I put it to the hon. member for Houghton that the freedom and liberty of those 95 people will not all be in jeopardy. Some cases will be handled and completed by the time this Bill becomes law.

Some of those 95 people are as concerned about the welfare and the safety of our total society and State as she is. However, they are prepared to play a constructive role. The hon. member for Houghton is assuming that those 95 people are all being held against their free will. That is an incorrect statement. They are not all being held against their free will.

One sees today the ruthlessness of the people who perpetrate crimes against the world. One sees the maiming of innocent bystanders, the murder of leading individuals in Italy. The people who are being prosecuted, and the gangs they work for, will not hesitate to liquidate anybody who testifies against them. We do not have to look very far to find justification and especially circumstances for the retention of witnesses in protective custody.

May I ask the hon. member what he is going to do about protecting those witnesses once the case is over?

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with two separate issues here. I think we can fruitfully conduct a debate with the hon. member on another appropriate occasion.

Answer the question.

That is my answer. Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. the Minister will treat with considerable sympathy the amendment which we have proposed. We already have a precedent for it to the extent that there is this discrepancy between these clauses. In the one case relating to criminal procedures the warrant must be issued by a judge, and we are simply asking for consistency in the application of the law. We are asking the hon. the Minister to show the world, to show South Africa, and in particular to show the hon. member for Houghton, that justice is seen to be done at the highest level. It is a pleasure for me to support the stand adopted by the hon. member for East London North.

Mr. Speaker, for most of his speech the hon. member for Durban North argued in a very responsible way. There is not much fault to find with what he said in that part of his speech. But then he gave his support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London North. Previous speakers on Government side have already pointed out the problems in connection with the proposed amendment of that hon. member. After all is said and done, the position is that the Attorney-General is in possession of the file on the case. He is in possession of the statements of the witnesses. He has the entire picture of the case before him. Therefore it is obvious and logical that he should be the person to decide whether a witness is the essential person to give evidence in that specific regard in a certain case and in a certain combination of circumstances. But, to present that whole picture to the judge, who is hearing the case, means that he may have to present his entire case to the judge. In that event the judge must have access to the full case, as it is going to develop in front of him. Surely it cannot be in the interests of the administration of justice for this to happen. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that it will be futile in such a case to leave the matter to the trial judge for his decision as regards the case. Then the hon. member for Durban North says, “justice must be seen to be done”. The position is that in terms of section 185 this application must be presented to a judge in chambers in any event. The affidavit which is presented, is not published. Everything is done in chambers. The expression “in chambers” is defined further. In other words, the decision which is taken there, is a decision which is taken completely in confidence. I cannot see how the amendment moved by the NRP can serve the case of justice in this regard at all.

Sir, you have given your ruling in connection with this matter. That ruling of yours is very logical and very clear. The only thing on which this House has to take a decision at this stage, is whether, in certain circumstances, a witness may be detained for a longer period than the one provided for in the present legislation. That is the only thing we have to argue today. Surely this is obvious and so logical that it stands to reason that there may be circumstances when a key witness is still needed and the case not concluded. If the hon. members for Houghton and Johannesburg North cannot understand this, they should go back to school; it is as simple as that. The hon. member for Johannesburg North says that such a person is kept incommunicado. This is in fact true, but a magistrate has to visit him at least once a week. Moreover, he is subject to the prison regulations. He is not hidden away there to such an extent that he has no rights at all. The hon. member need only look at last year’s Hansard, Vol. 67, cols. 4238 et sqq. There he can see under what circumstances such a person may in fact be detained. He is not completely without rights.

The hon. member for Durban North pointed out that we were living in unusual circumstances. It is essential for us in the South African set-up to be a good few steps ahead of the evil powers which are operating against us. However, the hon. member for Houghton had the audacity to say that there was no other country that had similar powers. I want to make bold to say that there is no other country that has achieved so much success in the conflict with evil powers as has the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member and the hon. the Chief Whip had the audacity to speak about “rotten legislation, and “a rotten system”. Is the system under which the Rivonia case was heard, a “rotten system”?

The system of detention without trial.

Is the system under which Abram Fischer was tried, a “rotten system”? Is the system in terms of which the person in the Goch Street murder was condemned to death, a “rotten system”?

They want the Italian system.

What about the case where a small Coloured girl was raped and then murdered and the main witness was also murdered afterwards because certain persons did not want the people concerned to be convicted. Is it a rotten system which prevents such things? Hon. members should really consult Hansard, col. 4239 et sqq. There they can read about the cases pointed out by the hon. the Minister as cases of the law not having taken its course, of justice not having been done, for the very fact that the people did not enjoy this protective detention. However, it is a “rotten system”! A person who argues in this vein, is totally out of touch with the whole system operating in South Africa at the moment. He sleeps like Rip van Winkle. He does not know what is going on.

I think enough has been said on Government side to demonstrate the logic of this amending Bill. That is why I think it is important for all right-minded members of this House to vote in favour of this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly on two things said by hon. members during this discussion. The hon. member for Randburg criticized the Official Opposition. He said the usual things, for instance that we do not care about South Africa, that we make common cause with the enemies of the country, etc. It was the same old tune. The hon. member referred, inter alia, to something which the hon. member for Houghton said in the discussion of the principal Act, when she expressed the opinion that in terms of the existing legislation the period of detention could only be increased. He mentioned that what the hon. member for Houghton said was allegedly irresponsible and would call down the wrath of the outside world upon South Africa. The legislation before this House, however, confirms the fears of the hon. member for Houghton. I therefore want to ask hon. members opposite: Does it not call down the wrath of the outside world upon South Africa? Therefore what is so often said by this, is in fact true. It is the substance of our legislation and the things that happen—not if they are known or unknown—and not the comment about it which causes international problems for us.

The hon. member for Walmer expressed the opinion that we were casting a reflection on the Attorneys-General. If we do not always agree with the judgment of an Attorney-General or if, in legislation, we do not want to leave the fate of an individual to an Attorney-General or any other official, it is because we believe in a normal legal system. The logical conclusion of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Walmer, is that the Attorney-General may just as well take the decision of the court. If he can decide that someone can be locked up for a year or two years as a witness, why can he not decide that an accused should be locked up? [Interjections.]

That is absolute nonsense.

This party very much wants to help and will do anything to uphold the legal process in South Africa as regards matters presented to the House, to streamline it and as far as possible, to assist it. The reason we try to do so is that we believe that no one should be locked up or punished in any way without the right to a fair trial. We believe that any person who is in fact punished, should first have had a fair trial. This is the basic principle. This is the reason why we should like to give our support to any measure that helps to maintain the legal process.

Do you think this measure is a punishment for the witness?

Of course! There cannot be the slightest doubt about it. Any hon. member who supports this type of measure, is making a mockery of this basic principle. What is the sense in making a fuss about the principle that a person should not be locked up without trial and then, in order that the trial may take place according to plan, to lock up a witness for a period of six months, a year or longer? I want to assure the hon. member for Barberton that in many cases such persons may be locked up for more than 18 months or two years.

Name the cases.

All the hon. member has to do is to look at our law reports. Unfortunately, I am not here to enlighten ignorant hon. members about the time taken by some internal security trials; he can go and investigate that himself.

What is the effect on potential witnesses of this type of legislation? If a responsible South African citizen should want to assist in exposing some subversive activity, if he would like to assist the State by reporting certain things which in his opinion are dangerous …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: This morning the Chair decided that hon. members may not conduct their speeches, but the hon. member is doing so now.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

You are playing with the Chair, do you know that?

Mr. Speaker, if any responsible South African wants to make an effort to bring to the attention of the court or the law an activity which, in his opinion, is undermining the State or dangerous to the community, it is now possible that as a result of this amendment of the law, he will think twice before doing so. Some of the people who deal with this type of activity are very simple people. A person like this may have some knowledge of the matter, but if he is aware of the fact that he may be locked up for a period upon which no statutory limitation has been placed—let us make no mistake about this—one cannot expect him to be so inclined to do his civil duty as he would be under normal circumstances.

What effect will it have on the personal circumstances of a witness if he is detained in terms of this legislation? After I had made an interjection, the hon. member for Walmer asked the hon. the Minister what the position is and whether the State may pay compensation. Such a person may lose his job or his business enterprise may fold and no compensation paid out afterwards will be able to rectify that. It may have fatal consequences for his family life. These things must be taken into consideration because we are not dealing here with someone who is guilty or even potentially guilty of any offence. We are dealing …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

The problem with these amendments to the legislation is that they aggravate an existing problem and this is a situation which is not going to help us to facilitate our administration of justice. Nor will it help to make people more inclined to assist and consequently it will not help to promote or strengthen State security in this country in the long term.

If a witness feels that his life is being threatened or that he is being intimidated, he is quite free to lodge an objection with the court and the court can then act accordingly. However, to imprison someone for longer than this period on the pretext of its being for his own protection, whereas it is absolutely against the will of such a person and also has an extended, even a disastrous effect on such a person’s personal circumstances, in my opinion amounts to an absolute violation of our law.

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to allow the “holier than thou” attitude of the hon. member for Houghton to pass unchallenged. I want to deal with the respective amendments that have been moved in respect of this Bill in relation to the contents of the Bill and not in relation to the original Act which we are—and quite correctly—not allowed to debate when dealing with this Bill. Much of what has been said, Mr. Speaker, you had to call to order because it did not deal with the Bill but with the original Act and I shall not similarly transgress.

What have we here, Mr. Speaker? We have a measure which extends, under certain circumstances, when a trial is in progress, the detention of a person already detained. We are not talking about that person’s original detention. We are talking about the extension, when a trial is in progress and that person is required to give evidence as a witness in that trial. Those are the circumstances we are dealing with. We have moved an amendment which recognizes the necessity of special steps in certain circumstances. We have said, and it has been our consistent policy, that under certain circumstances in time of war or in time of emergency it may be necessary to take exceptional action. However, we have always said that this should be done through a judicial tribunal or through a judge in chambers or some similar judicial process.

Do those circumstances exist at the moment?

Let me say what I want to say. The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout have accepted the attitude that, provided there was a judicial process …

Just a minute. You are wrong. We have never accepted that you can lock up innocent witnesses and you know that.

They have accepted that provided decisions are taken by a judge, there can be circumstances where people can be detained.

Innocent witnesses?

I am talking about certain circumstances.

We are talking about this Bill.

Wait a minute. I shall make my speech; not the hon. member for Yeoville.

Even if it is wrong?

We have accepted the fact that there could be certain circumstances, but our amendment states that we shall not support the Bill. We shall vote against it unless provision is made in the Bill for such detention to be authorized by a warrant issued by the presiding judicial officer in such trial. Our amendment calls for the judicial officer in charge of the trial to determine that the witness should be detained longer because the trial is in progress and his evidence is required. The original detention we cannot discuss, and that is what both the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Yeoville talked about. We are referring to the person who is about to give evidence and who will then be released and will therefore not be available as a witness. I want to put this to the hon. member for Houghton. The Administrator-General in South West Africa recently adopted certain powers of detention according to which there is a judicial officer to whom appeal can be made. There are also other safeguards such as visits by a magistrate, etc. That hon. member’s party supported that action and accepted it. So where is their morality now? They accepted the principle of the Administrator-General in South West Africa detaining persons …

Detaining witnesses?

We are talking about detaining persons under certain circumstances. Under certain circumstances that party accepts the right to detain people subject to certain safeguards. They have stated it publicly and now they are trying to use this measure to create a completely wrong atmosphere, to try to play cheap politics, to draw a red herring across the trail. What for? They are doing it for cheap political purposes. The hon. member for Houghton did not deal with the hon. the Minister and with the Bill, except in passing. She sat there with a cutting with which she thought she was going to have fun. With the cutting in her hand, she waited-for us to support the Bill. Their first speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, did not move an amendment at all, and it was only after we moved an amendment opposing the Bill, and responsibly stating our reasons for doing so, that the hon. member for Houghton came rushing in and quickly scribbled down a stronger amendment so that she could play politics.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member please state whether it is correct or not that he told The Cape Times that because the Bill—I am not referring to amendments—seemed sensible, the NRP would support it at second reading. Is that an incorrect report?

I did not say that. That was not the statement. The statement issued was that where a witness was before a court or when a trial was in progress, the principle of extending that person’s detention was reasonable. That is what the statement said. We have not taken any decision to support the measure. We supported the principle and we are doing it now. In certain circumstances this could be acceptable …

So The Cape Times lied?

I do not know what The Cape Times did. I am stating what our attitude is, as our spokesman put it, and what the official view of this Party has been during this debate. I do not have the cutting, but as far as I know, there was no commitment that the NRP would vote for the Bill.

The cutting states that the NRP would support it.

I do not remember reading that part.

Order! The hon. member must make his speech and not carry on a conversation with the hon. member for Houghton.

All I can say is that the cutting is not correct, because that is not the attitude of the NRP. That cannot be our attitude. We have moved an amendment stating our views. [Interjections.] What I want to say is that as usual this debate has highlighted a basic difference of approach to opposition. The PFP …

Is against detention without trial.

… comes in blindly with the strongest, most extreme opposition possible in Parliament to an amending Bill like this. We have looked at it from the point of view of what is responsible. We have stated that under certain circumstances detention may be necessary, but we have stated our clear belief that any action of this type should be taken by a judicial officer who hears the application and makes his own decision. What the PFP is doing, however, is to vote against the decision of a judge. According to section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is now being amended by clause 2, a judge of the Supreme Court takes the decision. The PFP is rejecting the right and impugning the fairness of a judge who takes that decision … [Interjections.] … because here we are dealing with a person who has been detained by a judge in chambers. [Interjections.] This is a reflection on the judiciary of South Africa … [Interjections.]

You are making a fool of yourself!

The persons concerned who have been detained under section 185 have been detained by warrant of a judge in chambers. Is that right? [Interjections.]

Not a proper trial.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must now stop interjecting.

I want to repeat that the persons detained in terms of section 185 have been detained after a decision by a judge in chambers. Clause 2 of the Bill before the House extends the period which a judge himself agreed to. By taking the line, which the Official Opposition has taken, they are saying that they reject that judge’s action. They are not prepared to concede to him— which is what we want—the right to extend the period in certain circumstances. They have no confidence in the decision of a judge.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to answer a question now. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to be interrupted. The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Houghton are trying as hard as they can to interrupt my speech because what I am saying is hurting them. The Official Opposition is expressing lack of confidence in the judiciary of South Africa by their attitude in regard to clause 2 of the Bill. Let it be quite clear that they do not have confidence in a judge or a judge’s decision. It is as simple as that. I shall now answer the hon. member’s question.

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member agree or not that an integral and most important part of any judicial order is the time factor involved, and that if a judge has given an order, the time for which an order applies is vitally important?

I agree entirely. That is why our amendment states clearly that we oppose any extension of that time—

In other words, I agree entirely with the hon. member for Green Point that the time factor is important. That is why we want a judicial officer to take the decision to extend the period if it is necessary. This means that the hon. member for Green Point should vote for our amendment because it reflects exactly what he feels is the correct state of affairs. I invite him to vote with us.

I hope I have brushed aside the attempt of the hon. member for Houghton to play politics with this matter, I believe in an unworthy manner.

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to enter into this debate until the hon. member for Durban Point decided that he was going to enter and make certain submissions here which are unrelated to reality. The first point that we should understand is that if the hon. member is opposed to the detention of a witness, he should be opposed to the detention of that witness for a longer period of time. How can one say that one is in favour of an extension of the period of detention when one is not in favour of detention itself? We therefore have to refer to that. If I may say so, the hon. member seems to have a somewhat short memory, because the present chairman of his party, whom he replaced as the leader of his party, said something different. I spoke on this subject in the House in 1976 and the then hon. member for Umhlatuzana, Mr. Cadman, then said—

So far as the proposed amendments by the hon. member for Yeoville are concerned, those in regard to the detention of witnesses, I want to say they are reasonable and have our support. I would suggest that one could go even further than the hon. gentleman has gone in so far as his second amendment is concerned. He suggested that access should be made available to the spouse, children and legal adviser of the person detained, but there are persons with neither spouse nor children and I would suggest that next of kin might also be included to satisfy that category.

The hon. member for Durban Point is today repudiating the chairman of his own party! He is repudiating a man he has replaced as the leader of his party. He has the audacity to accuse …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member why, if he is so totally opposed to the principle, he has moved amendments in order to try to improve the clause? We are moving our amendment in the Committee Stage to try to improve the clause.

The answer is very simple. I shall always move amendments to improve a situation of which I disapprove. However, the hon. member forgets he is not in the Committee Stage. He is moving an amendment in the Second Reading which sets out his principles. The hon. member, as an old established member of this House, knows that that is the situation. The hon. member has rejected his own leader. I want to make it very clear that by this measure the hon. the Minister is not equating the situation with that in South West Africa, as the hon. member said. The people who will be detained are witnesses, and not people who are alleged to have committed offences or who are alleged to be a threat to the security of the State. Presently there is a law in terms of which one can detain them for a period of time, and the hon. Minister now wants to detain them longer without any of the facilities which i believe should exist in any case for a witness who is detained. I ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he can justify this longer period. I am not talking about the existing period. Can he justify the fact that during that extended period there is, in terms of this Bill, no access by legal advisers or next of kin? That is in fact what his chairman has suggested. There is a deprivation of the freedom of that man, who has to earn his living. On the face of it he may be completely innocent. If he is a professional person, his practice may be ruined. When he is released from gaol, he may not have employment any more. All of that the hon. member now seeks to justify while his own chairman, I assume, still stands by the attitude he adopted. I think it is most remarkable. [Interjections.]

The principle was accepted long ago.

The answer is a very simple one. If a witness is committed by a court, we do not need this statute at all. The hon. member on the other side of the House who is interjecting also knows it because he has some modicum of knowledge of criminal procedure. We therefore do not need any of these things. The truth is that if a principle is wrong in the first place, an extension of that incorrect principle is equally wrong. That is why we cannot vote for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I found the fight between the two parties very interesting, but the House will have to excuse me, because I am not prepared to reply to all the irrelevant points raised here. The position is simply that we have section 12B of the Internal Security Act and section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act in front of us and those two sections contain the principles already laid down. One of them is that witnesses can be detained, in the one case, by order of the Attorney-General and in the other case by order of a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa. These are the two principles already laid down here. There is no argument in this House about that. The whole purpose of the two sections is, in fact, that these people should be detained to be able to give evidence in trials.

I told the House this afternoon what my problem is. I have said that the Act allows me to detain the witness for six months or until the end of the trial, whichever period is the shorter. It remains, however, a maximum of six months. I also mentioned the fact that I have trials which last for longer than the six month period. The purpose of the two sections is frustrated by the fact that half way and even a quarter of the way through a trial, or at whichever stage the period of six months is passed, we have to let the person go. Therefore we have detained a man for six months, but we might as well have let him go in the beginning. The court case has started, the person has not given evidence yet, the period of six months is over and therefore he has been detained for six months for nothing. Now he has to go. I told the House then that this was an anomaly and that I had to correct it. The purpose is that the witness should stay there until he has given evidence. Therefore we have to effect these amendments to enable the State to detain a person until the court case is over.

We have made a concession with a view to not summarily detaining a person, because if the State does not bring a court case within six months, then the man goes. Then he is free. Then we say to him that it seems to us that the State does not want to bring the case before the court and therefore he is free. If, however, the case is brought before the court and is in progress, then, when the period of six months is over, surely it is not unfair to say that it is no good letting the man go then. If we have detained him for his own personal security, then, while the court case is in progress, it is all the more necessary to retain him for his personal safety. He becomes much more unsafe at that stage than before the court case started.

Therefore I say that in my humble opinion, the only point I really have to consider, is the proposed amendment of the hon. member for East London North. I have to pay attention to the statement he has made. He said that he can understand that a person can be detained for the purpose of giving evidence. He says that he is satisfied with that. He said, however, that in the case of a person being held in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act by order of a judge, he would like an application to be made in this regard to the presiding judge. This will mean that the presiding judge will be able to say that the witness should be detained longer. I do not think that that point is well motivated, but it is a point which one should consider. It is an intelligent amendment which is debatable. The hon. member for East London North must realize that I am not opposed to it. If it were possible to submit an application for extension before a judge, I would have no objection to that. My objection lies in the fact that the hon. member wants me to put it to the presiding judge, because in my opinion there are certain dangers in this. The hon. member said—I wrote it down quickly while he was speaking—“He will not have to prove what his evidence is.”

†I totally disagree with him. This is exactly the first point that has to be proved to the judge. The judge will ask two questions. In the first place he will ask whether the evidence is material and necessary for the trial, because if it is not material or necessary, he will say that the man must be released immediately. There is no sense in keeping a man if his evidence is not material or necessary. Therefore, that is the very first thing that has to be proved to the judge. The second thing that has to be proved to the judge has regard to the safety of the witness and all the things that are listed in the Act. The person may be killed, he may be intimidated and, depending upon the circumstances surrounding this particular witness, it must be shown why the State wants to keep him in prison for the time being. Those are the two things that must be shown on affidavit to the judge. My difficulty is that I do not know whether the hon. member for East London North has the necessary legal experience …

No, he is a sea lawyer.

He may have the necessary legal knowledge, but I do not know whether he has the necessary practising experience of this type of court case. As an old defender of people I want to tell him what the difficulty is going to be in this regard. The moment the Attorney-General goes on affidavit, he has to set out in that affidavit in detail, to show to the presiding judge, why the evidence is material and necessary for the trial. As I say, he must set that out in detail. He must substantiate as many facts as possible. He cannot just vaguely say that the witness will most probably say more or less the following. He has to tell the court what the witness is going to say. The judge must then put a certain evaluation on the affidavit that is before him to find out whether what is going to be said is in fact material. Let us for argument’s sake say that he agrees that the evidence is material and that he therefore allows the imprisonment of the witness to be prolonged. What happens now? The witness comes to the box and it is found that his evidence is totally frivolous. It has already been said to the judge on affidavit that this is what the witness is going to say, but the witness now tells an entirely different story. The judge now finds this man to be a liar. The advocate will immediately ask why the judge finds him a liar. He will say that the judge has only found him a liar because of the evidence on affidavit before him during the trial. Therefore he has kept this witness incarcerated for longer. The advocate then states that he intends putting the case on appeal. I want the hon. member for East London North to understand what my difficulty is.

Let us see what the position will be if we leave the status quo as it is. I have already told the hon. member that this has already been on affidavit before a judge who is not the presiding judge. I refer here to a case in terms of section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Where a judge has already looked at the affidavit and has already found that the evidence is material and that the circumstances are such that the person should be held in safety in a prison, why should he repeat that in the court and thus jeopardize the court case? This is my argument. It is unnecessary. A judge has already independently looked at the affidavit of the Attorney-General, or, alternatively, in the case of the Internal Security Act, the Attorney-General has already carefully looked at the dockets and all the statements of the witnesses, and he has carefully evaluated them.

In both instances these two highly responsible officials, in the one instance the Attorney-General and in the other instance a judge of the Supreme Court, have already found that it is absolutely necessary for this material witness to be kept in prison. I have nothing against the hon. member’s amendment as such, but I am just trying to explain to him why I cannot accept it and I hope he will change his view about supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, assuming that we accept what the hon. the Minister has said in regard to the presiding judges, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to indicate that he will accept an amendment in the Other Place to the effect that a judge in chambers, not necessarily the presiding judge, could issue the warrant in this case?

I can argue that point too. The hon. member is putting the judges in a rather invidious position. He is going from the one judge to the other. He is virtually hawking the same case to various judges. What is going to happen if the second judge says that he does not agree with the first judge? This is a ridiculous situation. One must pick a particular judge and let the judge decide one way or the other. If one satisfies a judge that the evidence is material why go to another judge during the trial for the same thing?

Because you have told us that it cannot go to the presiding judge.

But it has already been before a judge in the first instance.

That is a poor argument!

No, it is a good argument. The Attorney-General puts an affidavit before a judge before a warrant for the extension of the time of detention of the witness is granted.

And what about the Internal Security Act?

That is a different matter. I am not going to change any principles here. All I am doing is arguing about the length of time. The hon. member must not forget that he has asked me to make provision for the presiding judge to make the the decision. My argument is that when the original decision was taken to detain the witness for a period of six months, that decision was already taken by a judge. In the second instance I maintain that this is the principle of the Act. We are not arguing about it. The Attorney-General has decided, but what is relevant, and what must be understood by the hon. member for East London North and his party, is that it is silly to allow a witness to walk out after six months while the trial is still in progress. If hon. members of the NRP feel that it is silly and stupid to allow a witness to walk out of the court after six months while the trial is still in progress and while the witness has not yet given evidence, I maintain that they must support this Bill.

No ways!

They do not have to. [Interjections.] All I want to do is to prove to hon. members of the NRP that if they do not, it will be sheer stupidity on their part. [Interjections.] This is in short the position. All we are trying to do now, is to regularize the position. A witness may be held for six months with a view to his giving evidence, and all I am asking Parliament to do is to ratify the principle that a witness who has not given evidence after being held in detention for six months, must be allowed to be detained for a longer period than the prescribed six months. That, in short, is what is before the House now. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London North.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. G. de Jong, D. J. N. Malcomess, R. B. Miller, B. W. B. Page, W. V. Raw, W. M. Sutton and N. B. Wood) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment moved by Mr. D. J. N. Malcomess dropped.

Question then put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—99: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C. Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J. Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Kotzé G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D. Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules) Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Louw, E van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg) Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W. Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Potgieter, S. P. Pretorius, N. J.; Rencken, C. R. E. Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L. Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A. Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M. Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D. Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P. Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B. Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. H. Hoon, J. P. A. Reyneke, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—21: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; Eglin, C W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N. Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P A.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V. Schwarz, H. H.; Sutton, W. M. Suzman, H.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In clauses 1 and 2 it is being proposed that the date 1978, to which reference is made in section 23(8)(b) and section 42(1)(b) of the Liquor Act, 1977, be replaced by the date 1979. Renewal fees for the year 1978 in the case of liquor licences were paid at the end of 1977 and those in respect of special authorities are paid during 1978, depending on the due date. The amendments are a rectification since the provisions concerned were only put into operation this year and it was not the intention that the provisions should be with retrospective effect so that the licensees and the holders of special authorities should be assessed for the higher licence fees at this early stage.

In terms of clause 3 an adjustment is being made in section 43(1) in connection with special authorities, merely for the sake of uniformity.

Clause 4 seeks to prevent a licensee from speculating with the licence issued to him for a period of five years from the date of acquisition of a liquor store licence. It has been found that some people acquire a liquor store licence for the exclusive purpose of selling the business concerned to the highest bidder at a considerable profit. However, this provision does not contain an absolute prohibition since the National Liquor Board will have to go into the merits of a licensee’s transaction and make a recommendation in this regard. If I am convinced that good and sufficient cause exists for the selling of a business I shall grant the necessary authority.

Clause 5 provides that no levy, surcharge, service charge or other charge shall be reflected on any statements of account in respect of accommodation, meals, refreshments or services from any on-consumption licensed premises. Legislation in this regard in respect of hotels was included in the Hotels Act, 1965, during last year’s session. It is expedient that a uniform prohibition be applicable to all on-consumption premises. The Liquor Act is therefore being brought into line with the Hotels Act.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that we are now moving into quieter and smoother waters. I should like to inform the hon. the Minister that this Bill should not delay the House very long. Its provisions have been well motivated by the hon. the Minister and we find ourselves ad idem with him in the measures he proposes. I do not therefore intend to deal clause by clause with the Bill. I would, however, like to refer briefly to clauses 4 and 5.

We would in almost all cases oppose restrictions being placed on private enterprise in respect of their trading in their own assets, interests or shares. In the circumstances the hon. the Minister has quoted today, however, I believe that a special case does in fact exist for a statutory restraint being placed on the alienation of an interest in a liquor store licence. A liquor store licence is, in the nature of events, a very valuable possession. In past years licences of this sort have been granted very sparingly if at all, and most of them appreciate immediately by many thousands of rand the moment they are granted. It is all too easy to make what I would term a financial killing without ever retaining or intending to retain a real interest in the trade itself. Trafficking in licentes, particularly new licences, is open to abuse and therefore in this limited sphere I believe it is fair and reasonable to move to curb undue speculation, thus excluding those who apply for licences purely as a speculative measure. This provision redounds to the benefit of those who wish seriously to enter into the trade on a permanent basis. I think that the limitation of five years being imposed is not unreasonable. Moreover, it is not absolute. In any event, there are provisions and procedures set out in the amending legislation for obtaining permission to alienate in proper and/or deserving circumstances. This allows of an elasticity which could be necessary in certain cases. Finally, I believe that this clause will be helpful to the small trader and will act as a retarding influence in the movement towards the monopolization of the liquor trade by the big financial groups.

I should also like to welcome the provisions contained in clause 5 of the Bill, which relates to the abolishing on licensed premises such as restaurants and the like, of the custom of adding at the bottom of the bill what is termed a service charge. I think many of us have over the years had experience of this service charge when going to a restaurant. I remember a restaurant in the constituency of the hon. member for Randburg—I think it was called The Olive Tree— where on a particular night we had a very pleasant meal only to find afterwards that at the bottom of the account was set out a service charge. I went to the front and asked the proprietor if I could pay the bill and he replied: “No, you must pay the waiter”. I then said: “By the way, does this service charge go to the waiter?” He replied: “Yes, it does”. I then went to the waiter, as he had asked me to do, to pay the bill. I then also asked the waiter: “Do you get the service charge?” He replied: “No, Sir, that is something we never get.” Having paid the bill, I then went back to the proprietor standing at the front door and said: “Your waiter says he does not get the service charge.” His reply was: “Well, that is the way we do our business. If you do not like it, you need not come and eat here anymore.” I took the matter further. I wrote a letter setting out the circumstances, attached the bill and sent it to two English-language newspapers in Johannesburg. Having heard nothing more for about a month or so, I wrote again asking what had happened. I then got letters back from the editors of both the newspapers concerned in which they said: “Mr. Dalling, we receive so many complaints of this nature—in fact, we are flooded with them from time to time—that it is not anymore even newsworthy to publish what you have experienced.” Therefore I welcome the provision finally abolishing this service charge.

There has been some adverse comment in the Press in the past few days about this. Restaurants say it is going to push their costs up and that the prices are going to increase, but I say that this is nonsense. I do not believe that that need happen at all. I believe that if the prices do go up, it will merely be evidence of a previous malpractice that has been taking place all along. That charge has always been held out to be a service charge in the true sense of the word. It was not considered a charge for the meal, for the breakage of crockery or anything of that nature, but a charge that was payable to the people who served one. On many occasions one is asked not to tip the employees of the firms concerned because of this service charge. I believe that this service charge has been used purely as a form of exploitation.

I hope that in the future the legislators on the Government side will find a way of legislating to abolish the service charge on non-licensed premises as well. I believe that the sooner the service charge is dispensed with the better. Therefore we firmly support the hon. the Minister’s proposal.

I should also like to mention that there is a slight error in the numbering of the very last clause. Perhaps that should be amended. I think the Secretary of the department will know about that. Sir, we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Official Opposition is giving this Bill its support. I believe they have at last seen the light regarding this matter of speculation or non-speculation. In due course they will also agree with other cases to which the hon. member referred.

As far as clause 4 is concerned, it is true that a liquor licence is granted to a specific person. For that reason it is absolutely essential to have this clause also as far as I am concerned. Not only does it eliminate speculation—that is, in itself of course a very good reason for having it, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Sandton as well—but it also counteracts monopolies, and that is essential too. As I have said, a liquor licence is often granted to a specific person for specific reasons. One would not like to see the matter of the granting of liquor licences being circumvented in that a person with a good name applies for it, while another person, who actually wants the licence, finances the application and rewards the person whose good name he is using. If this is done, the licence is ceded at a later stage. For that reason too, I think this is a very good clause which is being inserted here. There is, however, no absolute prohibition on the transfer of a liquor licence, as was pointed out by the hon. the Minister as well. By means of a written application to the hon. the Minister, and also on the recommendation of the board, such a licence may, in fact, be transferred. Therefore, those people who allege that a prohibition on the transfer of a licence goes against the interest of the trade, are somewhat mistaken in their views.

Now I come to clause 5. In this regard I should like to refer to section 5 of the Hotels Amendment Bill which was passed last year. There the hon. the Minister of Tourism introduced exactly the same provision into the Hotels Amendment Bill and it was also generally welcomed just as it is being generally welcomed today. We often receive complaints from members of the public who are against this charge, this addition to or levy on the account. It often creates an embarrassment for many people, as the hon. member for Sandton pointed out, and I think the sooner we abolish the levying of this additional charge on the account, the better it will be. I mention this in addition to the other abuses which it promotes and the fact that the money very often the money levied is not distributed among those people for whom it is actually intended.

I want to conclude by saying that I consider these as being very fair and practical clauses and that I, too, welcome this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. As far as liquor amendment Bills are concerned, in fact as far as liquor generally is concerned, we in these benches have a free vote so I shall be speaking for myself in this regard, although I have no reason to believe that any member on these benches thinks any differently. Like the hon. member for Sandton, I also wish only to discuss clauses 4 and 5.

We agree with him fully that while we do not like anything that goes against the free enterprise system, in regard to this particular Bill the situation is that the free enterprise system would not have allowed the licensing situation in the first place, and what we are simply seeking to stop here is the trading of the licence within a period of five years. There are those people who have no intention of opening a bottle store but who nevertheless get a licence, they then sell that licence to a third party at an enormous profit, with no outlay to themselves. We believe that it is extremely important that this type of practice should be stopped. We therefore welcome this particular clause.

One must also realize, however, that this is giving the hon. the Minister certain powers to allow this licence to be transferred within a period of five years. Once again we can see reasons why he should be allowed to do this, but we believe that those reasons should be tabled in this House at the end of every year, or at least once a year. We shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage for this reason, and I shall motivate it further at that stage.

There is also a question in regard to clause 5. I think the hon. member for Sandton has covered this clause extremely well, and we agree with what he says. I think, however, that one must bear in mind that as from 3 July, I think it is, a sales tax will be imposed in this country. This clause appears to me to stop licenced establishments from being able to add a sales tax of 4%. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how he is going to overcome this because it is stated—

Sales taxes, however, are not, in fact, involved in the provisions of the Hotels Act. Having said those few words, let me add that we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to thank hon. members for their support of this Bill. In reality I could never see why that 10% surcharge was always added. We were told that it was added because the people in the kitchen never received a tip.

†I cannot see why the cook should get a tip from me because I am paying for good food and I expect good food. That is basically what one pays for. What one is really tipping for is the service, and the service is sometimes atrocious but one still has to pay the 10% which we now hear, from the hon. member for Sandton, is never paid over anyway.

None of them do.

We therefore felt that this surcharge should go in any case. I do not think this affects other legislation at all, but I shall have a look at the point the hon. member has brought to my notice. I have nothing more to say and want to thank hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The reason for this is very simple. We believe that Parliament should know what the hon. the Minister has done in terms of these rights which we in Parliament have, after all, given to him. We also believe that the cases, where special permission has been granted to dispose of a licence within a period of five years, should be brought to the public’s attention as there could be other people with licences who would wish to dispose of them. If it is publicized that a particular reason appears in the hon. the Minister’s eyes to be a good reason, they, in turn, could apply and expect to receive such permission.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this amendment. I have considered it well, because I should have liked to have accepted it. In principle I do not have any objection to it, except that I cannot understand why the hon. member wants me to table the reasons for acceding to the transfer of a licence while I did not have to do so in the case where I refuse to allow a licence to be transferred. I cannot see why the hon. member wants this to be done only where permission is granted to transfer such a licence while he does not want it to be done in cases where I refuse to allow such a licence to be transferred. In such a case he is satisfied that I have exercised my discretion properly.

The second point I want to make is this: When I do grant permission after such an application has been made it is usually because such a person has become or is in the process of becoming insolvent. I cannot see why we should table the personal particulars pertaining to cases of this kind in Parliament. Perhaps the hon. member did not consider this aspect. It would mean that I would have to table all the reasons. It would mean that I would have to furnish reasons as to why, for example, Mr. A came to me and indicated that he had been struggling for four years and that his bank account was in a sorry state. He furnishes particulars of his personal debts to me, and because it is apparent from those particulars that he is on the verge of bankruptcy, he asks my permission to sell his liquor licence so that he can get out of his predicament. These reasons I then have to lay upon the Table. The hon. member himself can imagine what it would feel like if he were one of the people who approached me for permission. I am certain that he does not want me to table those particulars pertaining to him. This is the principal reason for not wanting to allow this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The consolidation of the various laws relating to the attorneys’ profession is being envisaged. The Association of Law Societies has requested that a few amendments to provisions causing problems in practice be effected prior to consolidation. This Bill complies with that request.

At present an advocate may only be admitted as an attorney if he has not practised as an advocate for a period for not less than six months. He must also serve as an articled clerk for two years before he can be admitted as an attorney. It has become apparent that the limit of six months no longer serves any purpose and its deletion is being proposed in clause 1. A similar restriction in respect of attorneys who wish to be admitted as advocates has already been deleted from the Statute Book.

The registration of articles of clerkship and the lodging of transfers thereof with the registrar of the Supreme Court is unnecessary, according to the association, since adequate control measures exist which are administered by the law societies. The necessary adjustments in this connection are being effected in clauses 2 to 6. The period of one month within which transfer of articles of clerkship shall be lodged with law societies appears to be too short and a period of two months is being proposed in clause 4.

There are problems of interpretation as to what attorneys may employ articled clerks, the relevant periods and leave arrangements for articled clerks. Amendments to place these matters beyond any doubt, are being proposed in clauses 6 and 7.

There seem to be deficiencies in the existing Act concerning the repurchase of shares from attorneys who no longer wish to stay on in professional companies or who wish to reduce their shares in such a company, and the proxies who may vote at meetings of such companies. Attorneys practising in a form of a company is a new practice, and problems were not foreseen when the relevant legislation was passed. Clause 8 now seeks to eliminate the deficiency.

The provision contained in clause 9 is being proposed to place beyond any doubt, in the interests of those entitled thereto, that trust property registered in the name of an attorney, notary or conveyancer in his capacity as administrator, trustee, curator or agent, does not form part of his assets and that it will consequently be protected from his personal creditors. Such a provision appears to be in the public interest. In fact, there is already a provision in the Act in question in terms of which amounts in trust accounts are thus protected.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support this Bill through all its stages.

That was a good speech.

I should like to mention one or two isolated clauses, if the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs could be patient.

Clause 1 deals with advocates becoming attorneys and I want to say that we welcome the removal of the restriction that has stood in the past. Quite frankly, I have never understood the reason why this cooling-off period has been necessary for advocates wishing to become attorneys. There could be a reason for it when attorneys want to become advocates, but I am sure the reasons are historical and relate to the separation of the Bar and the Side Bar. I think, however, that these reasons are, as the hon. the Minister has said, redundant. We must remember that the provisions relating to the articles of clerkship, which would have to be served by an advocate wishing to become an attorney, still pertain. Accordingly we support that clause.

Most of the other clauses of the Bill deal with technical matters relating to the cession, the transfer and the registration of articled clerks, a position that I was honoured to hold years ago. We have no objection to these provisions at all and we shall support them. Clause 6(a) is also an improvement. It relates to the question of which or what attorneys are able to take on persons as articled clerks. In the past the position was that the attorney would have had to have served a period of three years consecutively, without interruption, as a partner in the firm. This provision was somewhat rigid and it is now being thrown open slightly wider so as to allow attorneys of not quite such senior status to take on articled clerks. We shall also support that provision.

The clause which is of interest here, is the very last clause of the Bill which relates to the property which an attorney holds in trust for a client. The only absolute protection in the past for clients, has related to actual money held in trust for that client by the attorneys. There have been cases where doubts were raised in regard to other property held by attorneys on behalf of clients and I think it is well known that attorneys do on occasions hold in trust for clients assets other than cash money. I am thinking in terms of shares, securities, properties and the like. Therefore, by passing this clause there is now enacted an absolute protection for such clients, and accordingly we shall support this clause as well.

At the same time, I should like to put all hon. members out of their misery, particularly the hon. members for Brakpan and East London North, by saying to them that we in the PFP shall support all their amendments.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the eloquent and erudite speeches of the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. the Minister, we in these benches feel that we have no option but to support this Bill. I should like to remind my colleagues, particularly the hon. colleague in front of me, that this is in fact not a free vote. I shall motivate my amendments in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to thank the hon. members for their support of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I believe that this advice is currently given, but the reason for my amendment is that I believe we should formalize it in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (b) by the substitution in subsection (2) for the words preceding paragraph (a) of the following words:

1. “(2) Such cession shall be accompanied by an affidavit—and

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

My reasons for this amendment are the same as for the previous one.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I shall accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.