Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

When the Committee reported progress on 15 March, clause 8 had been put, upon which amendments had been moved.

Amendments moved by Mr. B. W. B. Page negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the proposed new subsection (g) to section 16 of the principal Act, which stipulates that if a member of the Indian community is an office-bearer or officer or a member of any organization which is declared an unlawful organization in terms of any law, he shall consequently be disqualified. My concern in this regard is that the hon. the Minister has endeavoured, during the Second Reading debate, to make out a case to the effect that the object of this amending legislation is to bring conditions of Indian teachers more and more into line with those of teachers of other race groups. In my previous comments I have indicated that we on this side of the House believe that one should move away from any form of discrimination or differential treatment of Indian teachers. When one looks at this particular paragraph and compares it with relevant provisions in other legislation and in provincial ordinances, one finds that nowhere in relation to White or Coloured teachers is there any provision such as this one.

I do not believe this is necessary, because in terms of the law it is clear that if there is an unlawful organization an individual is not allowed to be a member of it. If, in terms of existing legislation, steps are taken in connection with unlawful organizations, we know from experience that probably the most common step is to debar such a person from entering any educational institution. Therefore the effect of this appears to be totally unnecessary. It also appears almost to provide a stigma for the Indian teachers that this should be inserted in legislation dealing with them. For that reason I now move the following amendment—

As I have said, I do not believe it is necessary. It does not apply to any other racial group. There are other measures which cover a situation such as this, and I do not believe that it is appropriate, in legislation dealing with conditions of employment, conditions of service of teachers, that provisions of this nature should be included in legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot subscribe to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave. We feel that it is patently obvious that a person who is an office-bearer or an officer or a member or any organization which is declared unlawful in terms of the law should be precluded from taking office or from doing what is intended in this measure.

Mr. Chairman, these are interesting amendments. However, as happened before during a discussion in the Committee Stage, it is based on a misconception. I understood the hon. member for Musgrave to say that this measure is discriminating against Indians because the same measure does not apply to White teachers. I am not trying, however, to apply to Indians measures that apply to other races. I want all Indians treated on the same level. The position is that the contents of the proposed new paragraph (gA) are the same as the contents of section 24A of the Public Service Act. The position of the teacher cannot be different to that of an Indian officer in the department to whom provisions of the Public Service Act apply. As the clause now stands, the teacher will know exactly what he is permitted to do and what he is not permitted to do. Therefore I regret that I cannot accept the amendment. I cannot have two types servants in the Department of Indian Affairs and different provisions applying to Indian as against Indian.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is he referring to section 24A of the Public Service Act?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on this? As I read section 24A, I come to the conclusion that it does not deal with the same aspect that we are dealing with in this clause. Section 24A of the Public Service Act deals with political rights of officers and employees. Section 24A reads as follows—

1. (a) be a member or serve on the management of a lawful political party;
2. (b) attend a public political meeting, but may not preside or speak at such a meeting;
3. (c) may not draw up or publish or cause to be published any writing or deliver a public speech to promote or prejudice the interests of any political party.

This is not with what clause 9 deals with. It specifically says in so far as Indian teachers are concerned it only applies in so far he is a member of an unlawful organization. My point simply is that a person cannot be a member of an unlawful organization. Therefore it is not necessary for this to be inserted in this legislation. That is my objection to it. It does not appear in the Public Service Act, nor in any of the provincial ordinances relating to the employment of other teachers. I believe it is out of keeping with this type of legislation that such a provision should apply, particularly to the Indian community. Why are they different from others?

Mr. Chairman, I see the point of the hon. member. I was dealing with the two amendments, under the impression that the hon. member for Umhlanga had moved his amendments. The hon. member for Musgrave refers only to the question of belonging to an unlawful organization. The same provision is in the Public Service Act as well. No public servant is allowed to belong to an unlawful organization.

No one?

It is specified in the legislation. All we are doing is to bring the two Acts into line with each other.

In the provincial ordinances it relates to White people.

Then we are setting a very good example, and I think the Whites should follow the example as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on this particular amendment as moved by the hon. member for Musgrave and want to underline to the House that what we are saying is that the provision as it stands is actually redundant. It is not necessary. If anyone is a member of an unlawful organization—by definition—he cannot teach in any Government institution. If he is a member of an unlawful organization, he will be dealt with under the appropriate law. Therefore, Sir, it seems totally unnecessary and redundant I hope that the hon. the Minister will see it as such and will accept the amendment. I think it is a helpful amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite surprised that the hon. members on that side of the House are putting up this plea for membership of unlawful organizations. [Interjections.] I am disappointed to see that they take this point at all. I did not expect this. It is of course quite possible that the teacher can belong to an unlawful organization in secret. However, then it is necessary to establish that he does belong to it.

I was dealing with that.

There are other arguments as well. An organization may be lawful and then suddenly be declared unlawful. The consequences must follow immediately. I am convinced that the advisers of the department and law advisers would agree with me that such a clause as this is necessary in the public interest and for the protection of the Indian child in the South African complex.

Only for the Indian child?

Therefore I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in speaking on this clause, I wish to remind the House that during the Second Reading we took a very firm stand against the provisions of this clause. I now want to avail myself of the opportunity of repeating our arguments briefly in order to refresh the memories of hon. members in this connection. In this clause, the word “practise” is defined as also including persons who teach land surveying. My standpoint is that by including this word, universities are immediately involved in the matter, and in a manner the legislator has perhaps not foreseen. There are three aspects which I wish to raise in this regard: In the first place, it would have the result that such lecturers at universities would also be subject to the discipline of the Council of Land Surveyors, and not only to the discipline of the university. In the second place, the position is that because only qualified land surveyors may register, the universities are being deprived of the right of making use of persons who are not registered as land surveyors to assist in the teaching of land surveying. In the third place, the definition of “practise” makes it an offence to make use of unregistered land surveyors in the training of land surveyors. That means, for example, that highly qualified persons from overseas will not be able to lecture in land surveying at our universities. Furthermore, I also said that since the word “practise” had not previously been defined and was now being defined, unnecessary problems were being created. I requested that the hon. the Deputy Minister should give us a satisfactory indication if our interpretation was not correct and that if we could not obtain that satisfaction, we would vote against this clause. The hon. the Deputy Minister then undertook to discuss the matter with his advisers and to debate the matter further with us during the Committee Stage in order to see whether we could obtain a satisfactory reply. In the meantime I do feel that I should put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are not alone in our particular interpretation of the words. I have received a memorandum from the University of Cape Town from which I wish to quote a point or two. Inter alia, the memorandum reads as follows—

Clause 1 of the Bill may have the effect of

1. (i) constraining the right of the university to decide whom it may appoint to teach land surveying;
2. (ii) make it an offence for persons not registered as land surveyors to teach land surveying; and
3. (iii) allow bodies outside the university disciplinary control over persons teaching land surveying.

Consequently there are strong arguments in favour of an amendment to clause 1. It is not only we on this side of the House who have problems with this definition, but persons outside the House as well. I should like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister what his explanation is and if it is satisfactory, we shall be prepared to support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, after the Second Reading of this Bill had been dealt with and the objections on the part of the Opposition and of the hon. member for Wynberg in particular had been encountered, we had discussions with the law advisers on the interpretation of the whole matter. I want to state in the first place that clause 1 deals with a person. It does not deal with a faculty at a university; it deals with a person. We must not overlook this point and think that an entire land surveying faculty at a university is affected by this clause. It deals only with a person. This must be very clearly understood. If a person at a land surveying faculty at a university were to lecture in mathematics, physics, soil science or any other subject which is taught in that faculty, and were to be registered as a land surveyor, he would of course be subject to the provisions of this Bill. In other words, if the university employs such person and he is registered as a land surveyor, then he will be subject to the provisions of this legislation. The university is autonomous in any event and may arrange its course as deems fit. I believe that when a course in land surveying is arranged at a university, there will of necessity be consultation with the council of land surveyors involved. But I want to repeat that in this respect the university is autonomous and itself decides on the conditions of service and conditions of employment of a person. In other words, the council cannot decide for the university what its conditions of employment or service at such university must be. If a university council were to decide that a person on its staff who is qualified as a land surveyor and who teaches in that particular faculty should be registered as a land surveyor, then such lecturing land surveyor would be subject to the provisions of the legislation. I want to repeat this point so that the hon. member can understand it clearly. If the conditions of service of a university are such that a land surveyor whom the university employs to lecture in the Department of Land Surveying must be a registered land surveyor, then this particular land surveyor would be subject to the provisions of the legislation. The land surveyor would then of course be subject to all the resolutions and the discipline which the council would impose in the performance of its duties under the relevant statutory provisions. Pursuant to this I just want to refer to the last amendment effected to the relevant Act, where it is clearly stipulated what type of offence is subject to the council. In section 18 of the principal Act it is clearly stipulated what rules and regulations may be made by the council. What I am therefore trying to say is that if a land surveyor who is indeed registered as a land surveyor is employed by a university, he will be subject to the disciplinary measures of the profession in so far they relate to the performance of those particular duties. This would not apply, for example, if he were to keep other women, or something of that nature. It is only in the pursuance of his profession that he will be subject to the disciplinary measures applicable to the particular profession.

If the conditions of employment of such university do not provide that the lecturing staff concerned be registered as land surveyors, the individual will of course be free to decide for himself whether or not he will register. In other words, if the conditions of employment of the particular university do not provide that a land surveyor be registered, the land surveyor is free to decide whether or not he will register. If he does not want to register, he is not subject to the provisions of this legislation. I might just tell the hon. member that this is already the case in the legal profession. I have ascertained this from my attorney friends. If an attorney is registered as such, he is subject to the rules and regulations of his organization. The same applies to the medical profession and the engineering profession. These are all professions that are subject to the rules and regulations of the council that keeps a watchful eye over the particular profession.

The same applies, of course, to land surveyors doing administrative work. The objection here was actually raised with universities in mind, but the same principles apply to land surveyors doing administrative work. If the conditions of employment provide that a land surveyor who does administrative work should be registered, then he will be subject to the provisions of the legislation.

I just want to summarize quickly. My feeling is that any land surveyor who is proud of his profession, would derive great satisfaction from also being an active member of his organization or institute. He will also obtain professional satisfaction if he abides by the rules prescribed by his organization. I have taken note of what was said in the memorandum from the University of Cape Town, but I think that perhaps in the beginning we simply overlooked the little word “person”. A university is, in any case, autonomous in all respects when it comes to determining what should happen to its lecturing staff. In the second place any member of the staff is free, if it is not a condition of service, to register or not to register. He has a free choice in the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his detailed reply and for the trouble he has taken to give us this information. We on this side have no quarrel with what the hon. the Minister is trying to achieve with this amending legislation to solve the difficulty which, as he stated in the Second Reading debate, applies to people in Government service who carry out the work of registration and also those people who lecture.

We have no difficulty in accepting the argument that the amendment applies to a person in the first place. We accept the fact that it applies to a person. Neither do we have any difficulty with his argument that only when a person is registered, does he fall under the provisions of the legislation. Thirdly, we have no difficulty with the fact that if he is a member of a university, which has its own autonomy, he can carry out his duties in terms of the rules of the relevant university.

But does the amending legislation which has been placed before the House in fact achieve this objective? That is our difficulty. I say this because the definition of “practise” in the Bill reads as follows—

How does “practising” come into the Act itself? It initially comes into the Act in section 10. Subsection (2) of that section provides that—

That is fine; that takes care of everybody in the profession who practises as a land surveyor. Incidentally, the hon. the Deputy Minister used the law profession as an example. Nobody can practise law as an attorney or as an articled clerk to an attorney unless in the case of the articled clerk he is registered as such or in the case of the attorney he is practising in terms of the Act. There is no provision to the effect that a lecturer in any subject of law, such as mercantile law, at a college has to be a practising attorney for example. If one looks at the definition in clause 1 very carefully, one sees that “practising” can also mean teaching or doing administrative work. With great respect, I submit that, although clearly it is not the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention that it should be so, the construction can be placed on the clause before us that, if one is practising, one is teaching and if one is teaching, one is practising and one therefore must be registered under the Act. That is the difficulty we have. If that is not the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention, I do not believe the wording before us meets the case. We accept what the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention is, but perhaps he would consider an amendment, possibly in the Other Place, to make it clear that one is not practising land surveying if one is lecturing at a university in any subject related to land surveying and that it does not interfere with the autonomy of the university if disciplinary action is taken or rules are laid down in terms of section 18 of the Land Survey Act. We would accept it on that basis.

Mr. Chairman, the initial intention with this amendment was in fact to make it lawful for members of the profession who teach land surveying subjects at universities or who do administrative work, to practise land surveying or to undertake surveys. That is the whole object as far as this amendment is concerned. On the basis of legal advice obtained by the Council of Land Surveyors, misgivings were expressed about the legality of people who teach land surveyors at universities or do administrative work, doing surveys. Those misgivings were expressed after the Council of Land Surveyors had obtained legal advice. The object of this clause is in fact to make such surveys lawful. Some universities require land surveyors who teach in their department of land surveying to maintain a small practice. They make provision for that in their conditions of service in order to ensure that the land surveyor will continue to practice and remain abreast of developments in his profession. Now it is true that as far as the old Act is concerned—it is not I who say this, but the legal advisers—there could be doubt about the legality of such a land surveyor doing surveys. That is the reason for this amendment. I say this in all fairness. I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member on this matter. That is all it entails. I want to repeat: If a university requires such a land surveyor to be registered, he will be subject to the Act and he will be in honour bound to abide by the rules and regulations of its discipline. That is all this clause entails. I really do not want to cross swords with the hon. member, instead I want to give him the assurance that this is the only reason for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to state that after having listened carefully to that explanation, we on this side of the House are satisfied.

That is fine. Say: “Thank you, Oom Sarel.” [Interjections.]

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading Debate our problem with this clause was that no provision was being made which would entail that all the members of the council should of necessity be advised of an intended resolution to be passed. I therefore move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

My reason for this is that it might well happen that if only two-thirds of the council members are willing to accept a certain proposal, only those members will be notified of such proposal and that the others will not hear about it at all. For that reason we felt that the amendment should be introduced to ensure that all the members are notified of such a proposal that may be introduced. It is a reasonable request that we are making. I cannot see how any problems can be experienced in regard to such a notice. I cannot see how a period of seven days cannot be sufficient for making such a proposal known. These are my reasons for moving this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we wish to support the argument by the hon. member for Wynberg that all the members should actually be notified of such a proposal. I do not think it is an unreasonable request that every member should be notified. We are not going to argue about the period of notice. I think that everyone could be advised of the matter telephonically. If there is a matter they have to discuss, everyone in that council must be notified. I am also thinking of the practical side of the matter. In this regard I am in fact going to contradict myself. If it were to happen that seven out of the ten members— that is the two-thirds required—were to discuss a matter and the remaining three members who had been left out were to discover that the other seven had done something with which they did not agree, then that council would never function properly. In my view, those other three members should also have been notified so that they could have had time to advise those other members that they were adopting a different standpoint. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister would do well to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have once again had discussions with the law adviser in this connection. His feeling is that the law can only legalize the principle. What is the principle? The principle is that if a council has to pass a resolution in a hurry and is not able to convene and if, as I said during the Second Reading debate when I motivated this matter, the cost appears to be so high that they will have to meet more than once a year to ratify a resolution, a resolution may be passed by way of a circular if two-thirds of the members of the council will sign it.

It is merely to legalize the principle, in other words, the principle of a resolution being passed without an actual meeting having to be held. The modus operandi must be worked out by themselves. Whether it is done by way of a circular, or by telephone, or by way of personal consultation does not matter. The secretary of the council could, for example, visit the people and tell them that the council wants the resolution in a hurry. I just want to mention one practical problem. Take, for example, a land surveyor who is a member of the council and who is doing surveys up in the Northern Transvaal. He is therefore not at his registered address. If it were now to be laid down in the legislation that the notice should be delivered to his registered address by registered post and he does not receive that letter? Consequently there are practical problems that could arise if it were to be laid down in the legislation that a notice should be delivered to his address by registered post seven days before the time. For that reason the law advisers state that we are merely legalizing the principle, in other words, that a resolution may be passed without the council meeting. Furthermore, the clause also reads very clearly “a resolution of the council”. In this case, “council” means all the members of the council. It is not only two-thirds or half of the council. The proposed subsection (6) reads—

Once again we have to note that the legislation expressly states “a resolution of the council”. In other words, I want to accept that when such a resolution has to be passed, all the members of the council must receive prior notice. If I have to display my elementary legal knowledge here, I should say that if a member has not received notice of a resolution that has to be passed and he was available, he would be able to have such resolution declared unlawful, even though two-thirds of the council have approved of it. I am merely pointing out to hon. members the practical implications of legislation which stipulates that it should take place by registered post and that it should be given seven days before the time. These are the practical implications in regard to this particular profession where a land surveyor may be very far away and they are perhaps able to get hold of him telephonically or, as I have said, the secretary of the council could go to the members and tell them what the resolution was. These are practical implications that arise, and the law adviser is hesitant to lay down in the Act precisely what the procedure is that should be adopted. He requests that there should rather be a decision on the principle, and that the modus operandi should rest with the council itself.

That is common sense.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister I do not think he quite dealt with our difficulty. We strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg and supported also by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. It is true that in terms of this legislation we are legislating in principle and the details are carried out by the council. That may be so, but once one goes to the trouble of legislating that a resolution can be passed by only three-quarters of the council, one is leaving a serious gap in the questionability of carrying out the resolutions of the council.

I say this for the reasons that, firstly, if there are factions—as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South correctly said— where, for example, one-third of the members are known to be against a certain policy decision and the others in favour of it and want to get the resolution through, they need only send the resolution to those three-quarters who are going to agree with the decision while the others will never know until it is too late that the resolution has been passed, because they will not have received notice. If, on the other hand, we ensure, as we should—and the amendment will do this—that before the resolution becomes valid—because it has been passed by three-quarters of the council, and we have no objection to it being passed by three-quarters of the members—that every single member of that council has had prior notice of the intention to pass that resolution. It is not only a resolution which has been passed by the council and of which they are going to get notice. I think the hon. Deputy Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech that even if one cannot get all the members together to come to a meeting and one wants to get a resolution passed, it can be done by getting their agreement. So, in fact, one is passing the resolution to a new motion without it having been discussed at the council meeting at all. If we are going to have legislation, let us have good legislation. Let us ensure fairness and impartiality in this legislation. Let us also ensure the proper functioning of the council. I believe that if the hon. the Deputy Minister sees the argument in that light, he will understand the purpose of this amendment. Then he will understand why it is necessary for everyone concerned to be given notice. If, on the other hand, they leave their address, as they are supposed to do, with the registrar of the council, who gives them notice of a meeting, the council fillfils its obligation. If anyone does not receive notice, then it is not the council’s fault. It is also not the fault of the registrar. The land surveyor concerned has been given notice at the address at which he normally receives notice. In such an instance nobody can be blamed if notice is not received.

In the circumstances no member or faction of the council can complain afterwards of being outmanoeuvred in what could concern a very important policy matter.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument that a land surveyor may perhaps be somewhere in the bundu and cannot be reached in time, is one that does not hold water.

What about the seven days?

That does not matter. A letter may be posted seven days before the time and if the man is not at his normal address, that is just too bad. The fact remains that he has been notified. I think it is absolutely unreasonable to argue the way the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing now. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should accept the argument by the hon. member for Wynberg. He has no alternative. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, these hon. members are now referring to a specific circumstance here. I think they should rather pay attention to the practical side of the matter, as we have it before us. In terms of section 7 of the principal Act, the situation is as follows. There are 10 members on the council. A quorum consists of five members. A bare majority on the council is sufficient for the passing of every resolution. What amounts to is that at the moment any resolution may be passed with only three votes in favour of it. So what is happening here is that the existing situation is stated more clearly in view of the special circumstances of the land surveyors’ practice. The hon. the Deputy Minister has in fact already indicated that. He also pointed out that land surveyors are a long way from one another.

At the moment there are 10 members in the council. Two-thirds have to give written notice of their vote. This means that seven members of the council have to vote whereas in the normal situation, only the votes of three members are necessary. This therefore amounts to a major, built-in security factor.

However, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. member for Hillbrow to section 16 of the Attorneys’ Admission Amendment and Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund Act, 1941. The hon. member will see there that it corresponds verbatim with what is stated here. The attorneys had this problem long ago. However, they solved the problem in the same way in which the land surveyors are now trying to solve it. Consequently this is no new legislation. This is legislation that already exists, legislation that has been working satisfactorily since 1941. [Interjections.]

If we consider the new proposed section 7(6), it is evident that a resolution of the council contained in writing that has been signed by at least two-thirds of the members, is valid although no meeting has been held to pass that resolution. The only new provision is that a meeting need not necessarily have been held. All the other regulations and rules in regard to the meeting still have to be complied with. Notices must still be sent out, and all the other conditions must still be complied with. The only difference is that a meeting need not necessarily be held. In the circumstances, I find it very difficult to understand the hon. members’ objections. The hon. the Deputy Minister has made this very clear. This is a measure which the attorneys have been using for many years. In my view, it will be a very good measure for the land surveyors, too, to adopt, and the more so because the central council has also requested it and no one in the land surveyors’ profession has really raised any objection to it.

Mr. Chairman, 1 am really not satisfied yet. [Interjections.] We are dealing here with special circumstances where, for some reason or another, a reasonably hasty resolution has to be passed. In such abnormal circumstances, it is in fact necessary that we should ensure that all the members of the council be notified of what is being planned. The Deputy Minister has stated that if one sends a registered letter, it might perhaps not reach the person within seven days because he might be working somewhere in the far North-western Transvaal.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister feels that the seven days’ notice is too short, I am quite prepared to extend the period to 14 days. My point is that I merely want to ensure that all the members receive written notice so that the allegation cannot be made at a later stage that they were not aware of the resolution.

I am also in doubt about a further point and I hope someone can assist me. If one of the members has not received notice, would he then be in a position to claim at a later stage that he has not been notified and that the resolution is therefore invalid, notwithstanding the fact that it has been passed with a two-thirds majority vote? I trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister can assist me here.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Wynberg. I do not believe I am satisfied either. However, I do not think that this House should spend too much time on this clause. I think that finality should now be reached and that we should vote on it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, it is really not fair. In Act 19 of 1941, which is applicable to the attorneys’ practice, this clause appears just like this, verbatim. It was passed in the time of the UP, and we did not oppose it then. Hon. members on that side of the House are now complaining to us about something for which they themselves are responsible. [Interjections.]

The Council of Land Surveyors has taken over this provision just as it stood. I really cannot understand hon. members’ objections. The law adviser tells us that we must not play down in the Act how it must be done. Only the principles must be laid down. If it has to be laid down in the Act how it must be done, and practical problems arise, the Act will have to be amended again next year. That is the problem.

In reply to the last question by the hon. member for Wynberg, I just want to state that I told him that my knowledge of legal aspects was very elementary. However, my common sense tells me that all members must receive notice. The hon. member for Pretoria West has set it out very clearly.

But he is himself a land surveyor.

He is a land surveyor and an advocate. He is therefore a land-surveyor-advocate, or an advocate-land-surveyor. The hon. member states very clearly with the legal knowledge at his disposal that nothing the council has done until now, is being amended. The only amendment is that a resolution can be passed by means of a circular and not by means of a meeting.

I think hon. members are really unreasonable in regard to this matter. After all, this Bill is not contentious. It has been requested by the Institute of Land Surveyors because they are experiencing problems in effecting savings, and soon. They have also asked for it to ensure a smoother functioning of their activities. It is not contentious. Nevertheless, I undertake to consider this clause again. If there is any substance at all in the objections by hon. members, then I undertake to give them my attention.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to …

Order! The hon. member for Wynberg has already had three turns to speak.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I just want to state that we do appreciate the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanations in connection with the problem we experienced with regard to the first clause. We shall convey his assurance to those people, especially at the universities, who were concerned about it. I am really sorry that my amendment was not accepted by the hon. the Deputy Minister, but I am nevertheless pleased that he has undertaken to investigate the matter once again. Possibly the hon. the Deputy Minister will effect the amendment at a later stage. We therefore support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP also support the Third Reading of the legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before discussing the Bill, I believe it is essential for me to refer briefly to the importance of the fishing industry in the industrial life of our country. It is common knowledge that on the one hand, this industry is an important provider of protein food for direct and indirect consumption by the local population, and on the other hand, it is also a great source of foreign exchange. More specifically, this industry is also, as far as the Western Cape is concerned, a source of job opportunities and an important consumer of locally supplied equipment and services. The total market value of fish and fish products supplied by the local fishing industry is approximately R250 million a year. Of this, exports account for approximately R100 million a year. Because fishing resources are sensitive to over-exploitation and can therefore be damaged, it is essential for me and the Department of Industries, including the Sea Fisheries Division, to exercise control over the exploitation of marine resources on a daily basis. This briefly means that we must ascertain on the basis of continuous research what quantities of specific kinds of fish or marine products may be caught or exploited every year. We must decide who will be given permission to catch the quantities allowed and the fishing activities have to be controlled to ensure that the catches do not exceed the quantities allowed and that the industry and the public observe the other control measures introduced with regard to specific kinds of fish from time to time. The most important sectors of the fishing industry are the trawling industry, the pelagic fishing industry and the rock lobster industry. I want to refer to the various sectors in the same order.

The trawling industry, which is based mainly on stock-fish, has had to compete with the trawlers from other countries for many years. Uncontrolled catches by such trawlers from other countries have led to over-exploitation of the resources, resulting in a drop in the amount of fish caught per catch effort, which has caused a great rise in the cost per ton of fish landed. Although certain positive measures for controlling catches were introduced by the International Commission for the South-East Atlantic Ocean Fisheries, in which South Africa plays a leading part, the catches of the local trawling industry dropped from 136 000 tons in 1974 to 115 000 tons in 1977. With the extension of the Republic’s fishing zone from 12 to 200 sea miles as from 1 November 1977, it is now possible to control the total catch effort, and a large number of foreign trawlers have had to withdraw from the industry in our waters. Catches have already improved considerably and the prospects for this sector are now very good. Stock-fish catches are controlled by way of a quota which is revised annually, and which I hope will be arranged on an individual quota basis as from next year.

It is estimated that in terms of current monetary values, the landed value of stockfish alone will be approximately R100 million a year by the time the resources have fully recovered.

The second important sector of the fishing industry is the pelagic industry. For the pelagic industry of the Republic—excluding Walvis Bay—a quota of 380 000 tons of fish has been laid down for 1979. Up to 1970, there was no quota for this industry, but catches were controlled by means of a restriction on the total hold capacity of boats and the number and processing capacity of factories. The hon. member for Simonstown will remember that situation.

In 1971, a total quota of 363 000 tons was introduced, which was adjusted annually according to the state of the resource. For 1973, it was possible to increase the quota to 430 000 tons, but since then it has had to be adjusted to 380 000 tons in 1977, where it still stands for this year. The value of the products of this sector, mainly fish meal and fish oil, amounted to approximately R36 million in 1978.

I come now to the rock lobster industry. The exploitation of the West Coast rock lobster resource of the Republic has been controlled by way of quotas since the ’fifties. Initially, only export quotas were imposed, and between 1962 and 1968, the total export quota amounted to 3 129 800 kg of tail mass. By 1968, however, there were signs that the resources had been over-exploited, so it was necessary to reduce the quota drastically and to extend quota control to the local market as well, and to introduce quotas for lobster packing. The quota laid down for 1970-’71 amounted to 1 587 600 kg of tail mass, which was a drop of approximately 55% when local sales are taken into account Since then, it has been possible to increase the quota by approximately 20% in all, to 1 896 000 kg in 1977-’78, but for the present season it has had to be reduced by 15% again. Measures for protecting the lobster resources and improving control over their exploitation are constantly being investigated. The Department of Industries and I will do everything in our power to ensure that this and all other fishing resources are utilized to the full advantage of the country, but that at the same time, the exploitation of the resources is controlled in such a way that prosperity will also be able to utilize the resources to the country’s advantage.

As a basis for the Bill which is now before this House, there are two considerations which I would like to refer to. In the first place, I want to point out that last year, when the Fishing Industry Development Bill was before this House, I informed the House that I would have to request hon. members this year to consider amendments to the Sea Fisheries Act, mainly to ensure that transgressors of the provisions of the Act which control the protection of our fishing resources from illegal exploitation can be properly brought to book and punished, and secondly, to improve certain obsolete provisions of the Act, with a view to continuing the consolidation of the principal Act and the amending Acts which have subsequently been placed on the Statute Book.

Against this background, therefore, in order to elucidate the proposed legislation, I want to divide the clauses into two categories and explain them on that basis. Firstly, I shall deal with the clauses replacing obsolete provisions of the existing Act or providing for changed circumstances or improved definitions of certain provisions. These are clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12 and 14. These clauses mainly contain improvements to the wording of certain definitions and other specific provisions of the Act, without essentially changing the existing principles in the Act.

It is proposed that the definition of “advisory council” be adjusted and that those of “territory” and “Republic” be deleted consequential upon the amendment of section 2 of the Act, which I shall presently explain.

It is also proposed that the definition of “factory” be amended to exclude “fish shop” and “supermarket”. Fish shops and supermarkets are undertaking more and more functions, such as the filleting and packing of fish for their retail clients, and if they were not excluded, it would mean that these concerns would strictly speaking be forced to apply in terms of the Act to be registered as factories so as to be able to undertake the processing of the fish to which I have referred. Since it is obviously not the intention that these concerns should have to be licensed in this way, this amendment is being proposed.

Since the S.A. Railways is the largest goods carrier in the country, and since goods traffic in the commercial ports and at airports are also under the control of the Railways, the Railway Police can do much, in co-operation with the Department of Industries, to bring to light, for example, the transport of frozen lobster products which have been caught illegally, if the powers of fisheries inspectors under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1973, were to be extended to such officers, as in the case of the S.A. Police. In a recent case, for example, it came to light that 1 400 kg of frozen lobster tails which had been caught and packed illegally had been transported as pet food from Cape Town to Johannesburg with a view to reselling it after it had been repacked for human consumption. By the insertion of the definition of “police officer” so as to include Railway Police officers as well, the powers conferred upon fisheries inspectors in terms of section 6 of the Act are extended to Railway Police officers, with the resultant benefits in the control situation to which I have just referred.

One of the basic principles of the Act, which is aimed at protecting the fishing resources along the coast of the RSA, is that all vessels catching fish for commercial purposes are compelled to have their vessels licenced as fishing boats in terms of the Act. The department and I myself were under the impression that the present provisions of the Act also imposed this obligation on all persons other than bona fide fishermen who occasionally caught and sold fish, but during a recent prosecution in this connection, the court ruled that the present provisions of the Act could not be interpreted as compelling part-time fishermen who sold their catches to have their boats registered as fishing boats.

Hon. members will understand that this could lead to enormous malpractices and abuses. It is essential for the effective protection and management of the fishing resources to be able to ascertain, through the obligatory submission of catch statistics by the commanders of licenced fishing boats, what assaults are in fact being made on these resources, and for this reason, it is proposed that the definition of “fisherman” and “fishing boat” be amended as proposed so as to put it beyond all doubt that all boats which are used for catching fish for sale on a full-time or a part-time basis must be licenced as fishing boats in terms of the Act.

The present definition of “sea-weed” is being deleted, while it is proposed that it be replaced by a definition of “aquatic plants”, which will mean that sea-weed and all other algae and plants will be protected by the provisions of the Act, which is not the case at the moment.

Under section 2 of the Act, the Minister is authorised to appoint fisheries advisory councils for the Republic and South West Africa respectively. In view of the constitutional development which is envisaged for South West Africa and the fact that the Administrator-General has already taken over the administration of the functions of the Department of Industries in South West Africa as far as the fishing industry is concerned, there is no further need for the appointment of such a council in respect of the area by the Minister of Economic Affairs, and it is proposed that section 2 be adjusted as indicated in clause 2 of the Bill. Consequential amendments to the definition of “advisory council” and the deletion of the definitions of “territory” and “Republic” in section 1 of the Act, to which I have already referred, are therefore also required.

Clause 3 contains a consequential amendment to section 3 of the Act, arising from the proposed amendment to section 8 of the Act.

Clauses 4 and 12 of the Bill propose to substitute for the obsolete references to the previous Criminal Procedure Act the number and date of the latest Criminal Procedure Act which repealed the 1955 Act.

Clause 5 contains certain proposed amendments to section 8 of the Act in order to make a distinction between the procedure laid down for the renewal of existing fishing boat licences and for new applications for licences. The amendment is intended to simplify the procedure of application in the case of the annual renewal of licences of existing fishing boats, the circumstances of which have not changed, as against applications in respect of boats which have not been licenced before and in respect of which a comprehensive application form requiring full particulars must be submitted for record purposes.

Clause 6 seeks to amend section 10(1)(a) of the Act and is required for technical reasons. The present wording of the Act requires that specific years should be identified in the notice and that a prohibition cannot for example be imposed on the catching or disturbing of fish for an indefinite period—specified in years. The proposed amendment will remove this problem.

Clause 9 seeks to amend section 13 of the Act in order to extend the Minister’s power to make regulations under the Act in cases where they are inadequate for the achievement of certain aims with regard to the catching of fish and the use of equipment.

Clause 14 contains an amendment which is consequential upon the proposed deletion of the definition of “sea-weed” and clause 15 contains the short title.

†I now refer to the clauses containing new principles. In four instances the insertion of new principles into the present Act is proposed, namely in clauses 7, 8, 10 and 13.

In the first instance the Minister’s present powers to control fishing and the receipt and processing of fish by licensed fishing boats and factories in terms of section 11 are redefined in some respects in terms of clause 7. This amendment will remove all doubt as to the Minister’s authority to withdraw or reduce the catching or processing rights of any authorized fisherman or factory where such fisherman or factory fails to adhere to the provisions of his licence or permit or is convicted in terms of the Act. I trust I shall receive the support of the House in this regard. Due to the high prices realized on the local and overseas markets for certain fish and fish products, it has been found that certain quota holders, who in fact enjoy exclusive rights for the exploitation of our fishing resources, cannot resist the temptation to take more than their quota and to disregard the restrictive provisions pertaining to their rights. Therefore they have to be stopped.

In terms of clause 8 the Minister is empowered to regulate the collecting of water plants—mainly sea wead—or shells by way of regulation while the provisions of clause 10 will enable the Minister also to exercise his existing powers to obtain statistical information in terms of section 14 by way of endorsements to this end on permits or by means of requests to licence holders.

In terms of clause 13 the Minister’s existing power to grant exemptions from the provisions of the Act to persons engaged in scientific work, will be extended by permitting him to grant such exemptions subject to certain conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that the State President’s approval has now been received for the appointment of a parliamentary commission of inquiry with the following terms of reference, namely: In view of the necessity of conserving the living marine resources of the Republic of South Africa and the necessity of restrictions on the utilization of these resources, to inquire into, report and make recommendations on all aspects relating to the granting of rights of utilization of such resources, as well as of seaweed, with specific reference to—

1. (1) the present basis and method of granting utilization rights and the question whether such basis and method, as well as the systems employed by the concessionaries in the marketing of the products, best serve the public interest;
2. (2) the principles applied in the past in connection with the granting of utilization rights and, in the case of rock lobster, in connection with marketing rights, the applicability of those principles in present circumstances, and the question whether the accepted principles have been adhered to consistently;
3. (3) the principles which should be applied in connection with the granting of utilization rights to persons and firms;
4. (4) the desirability of restricting the period of validity of utilization rights considering the investment concessionaires have to make for the optimal utilization of the marine resources;
5. (5) the recognition to be accorded to persons and firms which have already obtained utilization rights and the manner in which the justifiable claims of others should be taken into consideration;
6. (6) the possibilities and the desirability of charging fees in the granting of rights or for the exercise of rights for the purpose of financing Government functions in connection with the control of the utilization of the resources; and
7. (7) the application of conditions aimed at protecting the South African consumer’s interests, with the least possible adverse effect on the country’s export earnings from the resources concerned.

The members of the commission are as follows—Mr. N. F. Treurnicht, MP (Chairman); Mr. L. J. Botha, MP; Mr. W. H. Delport, MP; Mr. R. J. Lorimer, MP; Mr. P. S. Marais, MP; Mr. P. A. Myburgh, MP; Mr. J. J. N. van der Westhuyzen, MP; Dr. H. M. M. van Rensburg, MP; Mr. L. Wessels, MP; and Mr. J. W. E. Wiley, MP.

The formal appointment of the commission will be published in the Government Gazette as soon as possible, while the necessary letters of appointment will be in the commissioners’ hands in due course.

*Mr. Speaker, hon. members may be interested to learn that South Africa has been a member of the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the Dumping of Refuse and Other Substances into the Sea since 7 August 1978. In terms of the provisions of this convention, South Africa as a member country is obliged to pass legislation for this country so as to be able to exercise control over the dumping of refuse into the sea. Although it is possible to a limited extent to control the dumping of refuse and other substances by way of regulation under the Sea Fisheries Act, the aspects to be controlled in terms of the convention cover a much wider field, and consequently I intend to submit a Bill to this House for its consideration as soon as possible so as to be able to exercise control over this important matter in accordance with international practice.

Mr. Speaker, I think the House is grateful to the hon. the Minister for having availed himself of the opportunity presented by his Second Reading speech to give us what amounted to a report on the fishing industry in general, to elucidate the Bill which is before the House, and to make certain announcements in connection with the commission which is now going to begin its work. The hon. the Minister is not the slowest thinker or speaker in the House. One could almost say that it was like a strong sea breeze which blew through the House in the past few minutes. If one is unable to react to everything the hon. the Minister referred to, he must pardon those of us whose thinking processes are a little slower. The fishing industry is of a particularly complex nature and when one has to consider it, one has to take various factors into account.

†Certain of the problems of the industry can be likened to those of animal husbandry. One is concerned with the proliferation of natural species and with the extent to which these can be captured, processed and brought to market. In other respects, however, when one thinks about the fishing industry one thinks about the possible exhaustion of a natural resource, and in this sense one finds something in common with the mineral industry. There is manufacturing in the fishing industry and there is commerce. Not infrequently international relationships become involved, e.g. where one has to deal with international waters and with the limits in which nations may fish. There is certainly a great deal of high scientific expertise involved and not infrequently there seems to be quite a bit of high quality detective work needed also.

Ordinarily one would describe oneself as a small Government man. With reference to ordinary commercial and industrial activities it is generally the view of these benches, and it is certainly my own view, that the less the Government has to interfere with free enterprise the better. I believe that is also the hon. the Minister’s view in principle. I believe, however, that one cannot in the case of the fishing industry sustain that sort of thinking for long, precisely because of the extremely vulnerable nature of this industry, vulnerable both to the depredations of the fishing boats of foreign competitors and to the natural diseases that may affect the species in which we are interested, vulnerability to unbridled competition not only the commercial sense, but also in the biological sense. I think this is one industry where there is really no alternative to very firm Government control, and this firm Government control must have at hand not only the legislation and not only the ability to detect, to capture and to punish where necessary, but also the expertise which alone can provide the Minister and his people with the basic data on which they have to take their decisions about controls and protection.

The hon. the Minister has stressed the fact that this is a substantial industry with a turnover of approximately R250 million a year and that very nearly half of that may, in good years, represent export earnings. I think he has been able to bring us good news by saying that whereas a year or two ago the trend was for catches in general to fall, there is now something of an upswing. For this we are all grateful. We can only say that we hope this reflects a new ability on the part of the hon. the Minister and his department to take the industry in hand and to look after it in such a way that it can continue to grow in this controlled way. I would imagine that even today, with all the scientific aids available to us, there will always be a certain element of uncertainty, an element of sheer luck in what happens from year to year in the fishing industry, but that is not peculiar to this industry only.

As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, the Bill itself tightens up a number of provisions which already exist for the Minister to exercise control, and it must be evident from what I have already said that we do not believe that we should object to these measures of control as contained in this Bill. It also replaces certain provisions which have become obsolete and brings things up to date. It streamlines the procedure for the issuing of licences and authorities, and finally, it provides for changes which are consequential on the envisaged due constitutional status of South West Africa. It is not necessary in any way for me to go through all the clauses repeating what the hon. the Minister said. We do not have any serious difference with him on any of the clauses. Therefore to contribute to the peaceful atmosphere of the afternoon, we are happy to say that we shall support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for Parktown supports the proposed legislation in its entirety. As the hon. member remarked quite rightly, a gratifying improvement can be noticed in the fishing industry at the moment. The same improvement can also be seen in the crayfish industry. I can say unhesitatingly that in my area things are not too bad. The spirit amongst the people is good because the harvest from the sea is better this year than it has been for many years. Apart from the proposed legislation, the most important news is surely the appointment of a commission of inquiry, the commission to which the hon. the Minister referred in his Second Reading speech. I have not yet had the opportunity to look at it in detail, but the hon. the Minister suggested that what he has in mind, is a thorough investigation into the future of our fishing industry, an investigation into marine industries as a whole and also into the control thereof. In passing I should like to convey my wholehearted thanks to the hon. the Minister for that. I think it is high time that such a commission of inquiry be appointed to tackle this task. This is a task which should actually have been done a long time ago as part of the process of the development of the marine industry. Against this background one could probably ask why the hon. the Minister is already introducing this particular legislation at this stage, legislation with regard to a commission to investigate the marine industry and all its different facets. One wonders whether the hon. the Minister could not have waited until such time as he had received the report of the commission before introducing the legislation. The fact is, however, that today the control of the marine industry consists of more or less two facets. On the one hand there is the quota system. Quotas are allocated and controlled by the State. On the other hand it is true that each citizen of South Africa has the right, if he knows where, and if he is not trespassing into State reserves, to go to the sea every day and to take out five crayfish for himself.

If he can find them.

Yes, it is not only a question of whether he can find them. He must also know where and how. This is, of course, an art. The fact remains, however, that that major concession is embodied in legislation at the moment.

I have not yet had the chance to make a detailed study of the Bill. I have only looked at it very briefly. It seems to me, however, that we are in fact affecting three things with regard to the past in this Bill. One of these concerns the quota allocated to certain bodies and the specific control thereof by the Minister, the rapid control thereof by the Minister. In this respect I should immediately like to make an admission to the hon. the Minister. Of course I am not before a court of law here, and therefore I do not wish to point out particular cases. However, I think that the hon. the Minister’s feeling is correct in this case. Nor do I believe that in this case, he need await the report of the commission of inquiry. What he is doing here, is in fact the right thing.

The second aspect is the collection of seaweed, or the collection of aquatic plants, as it will be known in the future. I believe that in this respect the hon. the Minister’s feeling is also quite correct. This is an aspect which requires immediate attention. The third aspect is the power of the Minister to obtain statistics in advance from people in possession of quotas. The Minister can, therefore, obtain the statistics before a particular body has caught its full quota. In this respect too I am also aware of certain irregularities which have occurred recently, particularly during the last few years. In this respect too I believe that the hon. the Minister’s feeling is correct. Apart from the fact that the hon. the Minister has announced that a commission of inquiry is to be appointed which will carry out a full investigation into the fishing industry in the future, there is also justification for the fact that he is introducing this legislation with a view to dealing with these few specific matters in the industry. While we are discussing this, I immediately wish to emphasize one thing, namely that I think that when we are discussing the marine industry in South Africa, we should not only discuss control measures, but should also try to see where we can prevent mischief taking place. As in other countries, the time has come in South Africa too when we shall have to acquire a much broader outlook and shall have to look at marine farming in general. The State should therefore take the initiative to promote marine farming with all its possible facets such as the artificial breeding of crayfish and cultivation of aquatic plants. I wish to mention a few examples to hon. members.

During the past decade some Oriental countries have artificially increased their food production from the sea tenfold. I have before me a periodical which forms part of a whole collection which is as good as one of many Farmers Weeklies. The periodical to which I refer, is a journal which appears in Scotland, Fish Farmer, “a farmers weekly publication”. This is a type of weekly journal which is published from time to time in the same way as the Farmers Weekly is published in South Africa. It explains to readers how science is progressing in respect of artificial marine farming. We shall, of necessity, have to provide greater momentum in South Africa in respect of this situation.

At the moment one surely finds the most outstanding example of marine farming in countries such as Japan and particularly Taiwan. Throughout the world today the sea is being regarded as an additional source of food for mankind. Large parts of the coastline of Japan and Taiwan, for example, are being set aside at the moment exclusively for the production of seaweed which, at the moment, forms up to 10% of the daily diet of the populations concerned. It is scientifically predicted that whereas at present, 2 000 000 tons of fish are being bred every year worldwide, the figure will increase to 20 000 000 tons by 1980 if one takes into account what has already been achieved a scientifically in this field in respect of artificial marine farming. In Japan the Government has demarcated large stretches of the coast for marine farming by private companies and at the moment these industries take up approximately 100 000 hectares. This provides a livelihood for 30 000 families in Japan. In Taiwan the production of seaweed alone increased by more than 400% within seven years. At the moment the cultivation of aquatic plants provides job opportunities to more than 200 families in Taiwan. I mention these few examples merely to indicate how, as regards artificial marine farming in the world at the moment and particularly in the Oriental countries—to a lesser extent in the Western countries—tremendous progress has been made.

Therefore I plead that we should not only look at control measures, the allocation of quotas and the exercise of control. We should also note that this process must, of necessity, be accompanied by an effort on the part of the Government to initiate marine farming, which must be tackled in a scientific way, beginning at the beginning. I hope that the commission to which the hon. the Minister referred in his announcement, will bring out a worthwhile report which will result in new pioneering work in this field.

When we consider the exploitation of marine resources along our coasts, it is true that as soon as one comes forward with an effort of this kind, developers and ecologists come into conflict. A very recent example of this occurred at Rietbaai. Rietbaai is situated in my constituency and forms part of the Langebaan complex. Rietbaai comprises only approximately 1% of the Langebaan complex. After consulting with the hon. the Minister and the department, a certain body made suggestions to the department with regard to the growing of seaweed in that specific vicinity. The ecologists immediately started causing problems by objecting to the project Today this problem obtains along any other part of the coast, for wherever one plants something of this nature, the ecologists become excited about it. Representations were made under the leadership of a member of the PFP, one Mr. Hulley. He really vented his spleen in regards to this effort To my mind it was a tremendously imaginative effort and apart from that, it was approved by the hon. the Minister. He wanted to make the effort in consultation with the scientists of the department concerned. The effort was not aimed at harming the particular area. In spite of this we nevertheless had this fairly widespread reaction from the ecologists. We shall have to get rid of this situation and bring about a balance in this regard. On the one hand we shall have to satisfy the ecologist, for if there is anyone concerned about conservation, it is they. On the other hand we shall also have to bring in the other pole of development. We shall have to reconcile the two poles, i.e. conservation and development, with regard, too, to future marine farming in South Africa.

Along the west coast of our country there are two other places, apart from Rietbaai, which to my mind are in every respect extremely well suited to any form of marine farming. In this regard I have in mind for instance a place like Elandsbaai. One could even breed crayfish artificially in that area, if one went about it the right way. Science has also proved recently that whereas we have been afraid of the pollution of the area in which the Koeberg power station is situated, those fears are unfounded. In fact, because the water will in future be a little warmer there, it could become an area where we could artificially assist or initiate marine farming in the future.

Therefore I wish to ask the hon. the Minister that where we impose restrictions or make laws to eliminate irregularities in this regard—this is right and it must be done—we shall have to make a major effort in South Africa with regard to initiating marine farming in general. I say this particularly in the light of what is being done abroad in this regard. This initiating process cannot be the sole responsibility of the State, because the State does not necessarily have the money for it. The State could, however, help us scientifically and private initiative could be involved in this. Together therefore, we in this country could make a fresh effort to give our long coastline new fertility.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Moorreesburg has made a very good point in connection with the control of fishing, not just fishing by our own fishing fleet, but on a world-wide basis. Anything that we can do to help control fishing is obviously going to be of great advantage to all the peoples of the world and, of course, to South Africans in particular. There is no question that much of the fish which swim around our coasts are being exploited by trawlers from other countries, such as Russia and Japan. Anything that the Government can do to better that situation will indeed be welcome. We on these benches also welcome the announcement by the hon. the Minister that there is to be a parliamentary commission with regard to the fishing industry. It is a very important industry and I am sure that the commission will do very good work. But I must admit that I am somewhat puzzled, because as I heard the hon. the Minister—perhaps I did not hear him correctly—it would appear that not a single member of the NRP is to serve on that commission. The commission consists of a number of Nationalists, two members of the PFP and one member of the SAP. Am I right or am I wrong in this regard?

It was an omission.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister assures me it was an omission. Presumably he will do something about it. We certainly welcome that and thank him very much.

Will you serve on that commission?

There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that our fish resources, like our agricultural or any other resources, do need to be controlled. In this regard we on these benches welcome all the clauses in the Bill which have that object in mind. As the hon. member for Parktown has said, when it comes to this particular industry, where a number of people are sharing one basic resource, then I think the principles of the free enterprise system must be modified to accommodate some type of governmental control over these fishing resources. There is no question that the Government is basically the only body who can do this. While my party believes totally in the free enterprise system, we can also well believe that in this particular instance it is necessary for Government control to be exercised. There has been great depletion of certain kinds of fish and one must also, I think, say that to an extent, and possibly the hon. the Minister will agree with me, the Government has not been entirely blameless in this regard. There has been, for instance, a tremendous fall-off in the fish-catches off the coast of South West Africa, and I think this is a resource which has been badly depleted. We welcome this Bill and we hope that the hon. the Minister and his department will use its provisions wisely to protect these natural resources we are discussing.

There is, however, an aspect of this Bill which worries us on these benches. We have, in fact, drawn up an amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a Second Time. I merely mention this to enable the hon. the Minister and hon. members to follow my line of argument. The amendment we drew up reads as follows—

This, in effect, is what this Bill does, because if one looks at the definition of “fisherman” in clause 1 of the Bill, one will see that the proposed definition of “fisherman” is amended to read—

Then the Bill goes on to define “fishing boat” by providing that a—

So there we have two definitions which, I believe, seem to indicate that the hon. the Minister is perhaps trying to use a front-end loader to remove a mole-hill. Why do I say this? Let us look at the definitions of “fisherman” and “fishing boat” again. To start off with, these definitions will cover a ski-boat fisherman who is basically a sports fisherman. He goes out on Sundays, weather permitting, to catch fish. He is, of course, doing this for the purposes of sport, and not really for the purposes of commercial fishing. When he returns, however, he sometimes finds—not by any means always—that over and above the requirements of himself and his crew, there are additional fish still left over. So in order to defray the expenses involved in running a ski-boat, expenses which can be quite high, he sells the fish that are left over. I appreciate the fact that in many cases these catches can be very good. I can remember, as a younger man, going out myself in ski-boats. Sometimes we came back with almost a ton of kob on board.

Came back loaded!

Yes, came back loaded, as the hon. member for Pinelands says, but loaded with fish, let me add! [Interjections.] I should like to take the matter a little further, however.

Recently in Natal a new type of ski-boat fisherman has come to light I am referring to those individuals who use two-man paddle skis. Those fisherman go out on weekday evenings, or on weekends, with no other means of propulsion than their own muscle power. They go out to sea and they catch fish. From time to time, of course, they catch more fish than they require at home, so they sell the fish. They are also, however, going to fall under the provisions of this legislation. Can the hon. the Minister imagine a ski-boat, which has a freeboard of approximately six-inches—I think in metric terms this is about 150 mm—having to display great big registration letters. I do not even know if there would be room on the boats for those registration letters.

Let us take the argument one step further. With the aspects I have thus far outlined, I really do not think we have that many problems that cannot be solved. What, however, about the rock fishermen? Think, in terms of this Bill, about the man who goes with his fishing rod onto the rocks or down to the beach, in the afternoon or in the evening. This example of mine, let me tell the hon. the Minister, has quite a lot to do with the sugar industry. He should go to the Natal coast sometime to see the mill-hands with their fishing rods moving down through the canefields once they have knocked off work. Hundreds of fishermen throughout South Africa, when they knock off work, walk down to the beaches, and if they are lucky they can have a good catch. They might certainly catch more fish than they want to eat themselves, or even give away. One must particularly bear in mind the less fortunate or less privileged members of society who do not have as much to live on as the rest of us. If they catch more fish than they can eat themselves, they are, in fact, going to sell them. This is another example of individuals who will be classified as “fishermen” in terms of this legislation. They will then be subject to all the restrictions applicable to commercial fishermen, and to me this does not seem entirely right. The hon. the Minister has cast a very wide net indeed, and I think he is gathering, into that net, all sorts of people whom I do not think it was his intention to have gathered in the first place.

A further example is the up-country holiday angler. He may come down with his boat which he perhaps uses on the Vaal Dam. He launches it in a quiet bay and he catches a few fish which he then perhaps sells during the course of his holiday. Once again he has to follow all the regulations and is subject to the same control that applies to the commercial fisherman.

The sardine run on the Natal coast is quite something. As hon. members will probably be aware, people do seem to go slightly crazy when the sardine run occurs. One even finds girls running into the surf, catching fish in their skirts and bringing them ashore. In terms of the Bill we might in future find a policeman on the shore who, when they come ashore with their catch of sardines, will ask them: “Did you get a licence?” I think the net has been cast far too wide, because people do sell the sardines they catch. There are often Indians on the beach buying sardines from those who go into the surf to catch them. Once again, in terms of the Bill these people become commercial fishermen and, as such, they are subject to the same control to which the commercial fishermen are subject.

I should like to probe this matter a bit further with the hon. the Minister. What are these people going to be required to do by the hon. the Minister and his department? Are they in the first place going to have to buy a licence to be able to fish? Are they going to have to register their boats? Are they going to have to pay for licences for their boats? How much are they going to have to pay in licence fees? Then, what is going to be required of them in filling out forms and submitting returns to the department? Every time a ski-boat fisherman goes out and comes back with a load of fish, is he in fact going to have to fill out some form detailing what his catch consists of? Is he going to have to say: “I caught 50 pounds of kob, 25 pounds of red fish”, etc.? Will he have to detail the quantity of each type of fish caught?

I should like to probe this matter even further because, after all, there are some ski-boat fishermen who, frankly, overdo things. They sometimes fish almost on a full-time basis and they do catch big loads of fish. I can therefore well see the hon. the Minister’s point. I can see that he would want to exercise some form of control over those people who are catching a lot of fish. However, in terms of these regulations, the hon. the Minister is now also catching those people who are not catching very many fish in the same boat.

That was very good.

Sir, I think that at this stage I am even confusing myself.

You are drawing a red herring across your trail.

As I have said, Sir, I think the net is being cast far too wide in this regard. We will be considering putting forward an amendment in the Committee Stage and perhaps we can consult with the hon. the Minister to see if we cannot overcome this problem. It has been suggested that, perhaps, the owner of every ski-boat should be registered as a member of a ski-boat club and that it could be left to the club to exercise control and submit returns to the hon. the Minister’s department in respect of its members. Perhaps the ski-boat clubs could be registered. Perhaps the ski-boat clubs should be entitled to enroll as members only those people who are genuine part-time sport fishermen. The point we must remember, I think, is that there are many people who do not fish for reward, but purely for sport, and who in the course of participating in their sport are able to catch a few fish and sell those fish to defray their expenses.

Having considered all the clauses in the Bill, which we are certainly very much in favour of, and having considered the problem we have with the Bill in connection with sport fishing, we decided ultimately not to move the amendment I quoted earlier. We would, however, like to ask the hon. the Minister to give this matter very serious consideration because we do believe the Bill goes a bit too far.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London North put a whole series of questions and expressed reservations. I do not intend to give him replies to them because the hon. the Minister will undoubtedly do so.

For a Transvaler and an hon. member of the official Opposition the hon. member for Parktown showed a remarkable understanding of the complexity and the intricacy of the fishing industry this afternoon. One was really surprised to hear how correctly he grasped the problem of efficient control over the sea-fishing industry. [Interjections.] Hon. members on my right must not try to hide their ignorance, wilfulness or folly by trying to level accusations at the hon. member for Parktown. They know very well that the hon. member for Parktown and I usually do not see things in the same light. We sometimes differ radically with each other, but when a person is right, he is after all entitled to recognition. One welcomes it all the more if it comes from those ranks.

When one approaches legislation of this nature, there are three main principles which are fundamental to an evaluation of it. I think that, in the first place, we should concentrate on maintaining and ensuring the maximum sustainable yield of the fish resources. This should be our first objective with legislation of this nature. In the second place we should also see to it that these resources, which are a national asset, are developed and utilized to the full at all times. The hon. member for Moorreesburg spoke about the balance which must be maintained at all times between the standpoint of the ecologists and the standpoint of those people who want to develop new sources of income. I agree with him on the need for such a balance. I want to associate myself with that and say that a balance must also be maintained at all times between the premises to which I referred, viz. to utilize the resources in such a way that they are not depleted in the process, so that future generations will also benefit from them.

In my opinion there is also a third consideration which applies in this regard, and that is that one should also take local interests and circumstances into consideration. It is true that the fish resources are a national asset, but they are also in a very real and direct sense a local asset to those areas along our coasts that depend mainly on the fishing industry, and for which the fishing industry forms an important part of their infrastructure.

I want to draw the attention of this House for a moment to the fishing industry along the southern Cape coast and confine ourselves, not so much to pelagic fish and rock lobsters, but, in fact, to stockfish. I want to refer to a report published last year by Prof. Stander of the Planning Research Institute of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning of the University of Stellenbosch on the Cape South Coast. On page 32 of the report I found the following—

We are dealing here with a very important facet of the infrastructure of the Southern Cape, and it is important that we apply the necessary protective measures to protect this resource in the interests of these communities. In recent years, as the hon. the Minister said, the stockfish catches have dropped from 136 000 ton to 115 000 ton per annum. It is probably a well-known fact that foreign fish trawlers were to a large extent responsible for this. We have already passed legislation which extends our fishing zone to 200 miles. With this measure the matter has not yet been disposed of, however, we cannot simply rest on our laurels and say that now that we are going to keep foreign boats at a distance of 200 miles from our coasts we can do what we like with our fish resources. I think that the strictest control should continue to be maintained.

It is encouraging to note that when the national rock and beach angling competition was held a week ago in the vicinity of Mossel Bay, a record number of fish were caught, which indicates that our fish resources along the southern Cape coast are recovering again. We must realize, however, that this resource could easily be overexploited again. On the one hand we must ensure that this resource is not depleted, and on the other hand, in the interests of the country as well as in the interests of the communities in question we must allow the people to utilize and develop that source. In this regard it is important to note that at Mossel Bay there are at present only 32 fishing trawlers which have been licensed there. In recent years the position has developed that the trawler fleet in Mossel Bay was fixed at 32. This caused the completely anomalous situation to arise that the value of a fish trawler was pushed up artificially. More than half the price of a trawler had to be paid for the licence. I say that this is an unhealthy state of affairs which is not in the interests of the fishing industry as such.

In this connection I want to refer again to the finding of Prof. Stander on page 33 of his report where he states—

It goes on to say—

To illustrate how important the fishing industry is to Mossel Bay as such, I again refer to page 33 of the report—

This is a direct source of income for these people. However, if we consider that these people, through their income from the fishing industry, stimulate the entire infrastructure, it means that Mossel Bay and its vicinity is to a very large extent dependent on this fishing industry. While we are applying control measures, to ensure that the fish resources are not overexploited we must also, at the same time, take the necessary steps in terms of this legislation to ensure that the fishermen of Mossel Bay make a proper living from the fishing industry.

This, then, brings me to the third aspect to which I want to refer in this regard, i.e. that we should also take local circumstances into consideration. The fact is that the 32 fishing trawlers that I spoke of, are reasonably small boats, boats which utilize light fishing tackle. Those boats do not operate more than 50 miles out to sea and 100 miles along the coast. It is also true that for 90% of the year these fishing trawlers are dependent on trawling to the west of Mossel Bay, approximately as far out as the vicinity of Struis Bay and only 10% of the time do they operate in an easterly direction. This is, in other words, a reasonably small industry with small and light boats. When we apply the legislation, legislation which also refers to large fishing trawlers—ocean-going fish trawlers—we must always take this fact into consideration, i.e. that we are also dealing with a group of smaller boats, vessels which, if we are simply going to place them in the same category, cannot possibly ensure those who are dependent on them of a proper livelihood.

Linking up with this argument I also just want to refer briefly to the position at Still Bay. At Still Bay again there are quite a number of even smaller vessels, boats which do not trawl, but from which fish are caught on handlines. These boats are mainly dependent on kob. The fact of the matter is that the waters in the vicinity of Still Bay are particularly rich in kob. This is one of the tastiest edible fish one can hope to find and the sea in the vicinity of Still Bay is one of the richest kob fishing grounds. Now it is true, however, that the waters in that area also seem to be a particularly sought after harvesting area for the trawlers. What happens now is that trawlers also operate in these waters.

Is it the Mossel Bay trawlers that go there?

No. I did not specify where the trawlers come from. [Interjections.] But the trawlers which go there to catch fish not only drive away the kob—this is not the worst of it—but in the process they also catch the small stockfish, which are what the kob feed on. These stockfish are of no value to the trawler and they throw them overboard. But unfortunately the stockfish are already dead when they are thrown back into the water. The result is that the natural food of the kob is being exterminated. Consequently the kob are moving away.

Recently the kob catches at Still Bay have dropped sharply. The fishermen at Still Bay are concerned about the possibility of this process continuing. They are concerned about the future of the local industry. I want to suggest that the catching of specific types of fish at specific places and at specific times of the year be prohibited in terms of clause 7 of the Bill, which contains the necessary authorization for this purpose. I recommend that consideration be given to the demarcation of an area in the vicinity of Still Bay to which trawlers may not have access but will be reserved solely for handline boats. In this way the kob can be protected and reserved for the handline fishermen. The fact that some larger decked boats come from elsewhere to operate in this area …

They are the boats of the hon. member for Moorreesburg!

I am not specifying, and the person whom the shoe fits, can wear it. The deck boats which come from elsewhere in order to catch kob there, and get their catches there, and do not have the same interest in keeping the ocean pollution free there, pollute the water and leave. All these things are to the disadvantage of the people whose livelihood depends on the fish which are caught there. According to the information at my disposal, there are approximately 600 souls in the vicinity of Still Bay who are dependent on this industry. It is in their interests, too, that I ask that the clause in this Bill be implemented in such a way that the local interests will also be taken into consideration at all times. Precisely because this Bill makes provision for the things I am advocating, it is a pleasure for me to support his legislation.

I want to conclude by saying that whatever legislation is passed, even though we make provision for the most effective control measures by way of legislation, I fear that our fish resources are in danger if such measures are not implemented in practice. The information at my disposal is that in spite of the limitation in respect of foreign boats which may not operate in our fishing zones. These boats enter our fishing zones at night in order to operate there. When daylight comes they leave and heave to a little way past the zone. If an attempt is made to inspect them they simply sail away and wave the inspectors good-bye. I therefore want to advocate that we should ensure that we have the machinery to actively enforce and implement in practice the control measures which we are including in the Act. In this regard I also just want to refer again to the figures furnished by Prof. Stander on page 32 of his report. He states, inter alia—

He goes on to say—

This indicates that our territorial waters are being overexploited and that in spite of our legal measures we have not yet been able to clamp down on this practice. This is the situation and we see examples of it every day at Mossel Bay. Previously foreign boats used to enter the harbour to transfer their fish, but these days they do it outside the bay and at night. Therefore we do not know how many fish they carry away. This is just not good enough. At the beginning of his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister mentioned the importance of the fishing industry in general. I would go so far as to say that the fishing industry is just as important an industry as the gold industry, the diamond industry or any other industry. We would not dream of allowing the gold industry and the diamond industry to be treated in this way. Just think of the legal and other measures that have been introduced in order to protect the diamond industry.

They still steal many diamonds.

Many diamonds may still be stolen, but I am aware that everything possible is being put into operation to prevent it. Therefore I can only advocate that we see the fishing industry in the same light and that we should be as much in earnest about controlling and curbing the illegal exploitation of our fish resources as is being done in these other cases. On occasion we have often discussed economic sabotage and I maintain that if one wants to speak of economic sabotage, we should look at what is happening at the moment in our fishing industry and to our fish resources. We must put an end to this, and in as far as this legislation seeks to do so, I gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Mossel Bay on his speech. I thought it was a very good speech. He gave a very good survey of the problems experienced by the fishing industry in the southern Cape. The problems he raised are also applicable to the other coastal areas of the Republic, and many of the solutions he suggested may also be applicable to some of our other coastal areas. The hon. member referred, among other things, to economic sabotage, and I agree with him wholeheartedly as far as that is concerned. At this state it refers specifically to the fishing industry.

Fishing terrorism.

I do not intend speaking long today and I do not propose repeating what I have said in previous speeches in the House over a number of years. There are, however, one or two remarks that I should like to make. In the first place we naturally welcome this legislation in so far as it can assist with the problems of the industry as such. We shall support the legislation and discuss some of the matters raised in the various clauses further during the Committee Stage. The Bill is to be welcomed even if, as the hon. the Minister has said on previous occasions, it is “eintlik lapwerk”, because we are going to have to have consolidated fishing legislation within the near future. Perhaps that will take place after the commission has sat.

This brings me to the appointment of this commission. We also welcome this very strongly because we have asked for it for more years than I can remember. I not only congratulate the hon. the Minister on appointing the commission, but I also thank him for my own personal appointment to that commission. Since this commission is going to deal with a minefield of vested interests, it is going to have plenty of problems, and I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is very important for this commission to sit soon and to finish its work, with its limited terms of reference, within a reasonable period of time because, I know the position, this commission can sit for years and years. I do not, however, think that this is the purpose of the appointment of this commission. Even if there is disagreement among the members of the commission I think that we should try to bring things to finality in that commission and to bring out a report as soon as we possibly can. Previous commissions have covered wide fields in the fishing sphere. One thinks of the South West African commission of the late 1960s and the South African commission which sat for about three or four years and reported, as far as I remember, in the early 1970s. So, much of the work has actually been done in the wider field. This commission has been appointed with specific and limited terms of reference and I think, therefore, that it can handle its task if it is led properly and if its thoughts are carefully guided in the direction of solutions to the problems which form part of its terms of reference.

I now want to discuss the three major branches of the fishing industry. After many, many years the Government saw fit to extend our fishing zone to 200 miles a couple of years ago and, at the same time, extend our territorial waters. That gave long overdue protection to the fishing industry. One branch of the fishing industry in particular, namely the deep-sea trawling industry, was the branch of the industry that was really under threat and stress from the activities of foreign fishing vessels. I think it is correct, as is apparent from the latest documents I have read about the fishing industry, to say that there is an improvement and that our deep-sea trawling industry should go into a period of economic prosperity as a result of the fact that our fishing zone has been extended to a limit of 200-odd miles, in accordance with the practice adopted by most other overseas countries with similar fishing industries.

This brings me to the second branch of our fishing industry, which is the pelagic fishing industry. It is being said, and has been said for some years now, that it has been as a result of activities of foreigners that we have suffered a catastrophic decline in the pelagic fishing catches off the coast of South West Africa and also off the coast of the Republic. That is, however, not true. The pelagic fishing industry is based almost entirely on catches in the in-shore fishing area. [Interjections.] I think it is fair to say that it is a surface industry and extends mainly to the limits of the continental shelf. As the hon. the Minister knows, the continental shelf is a very narrow shelf off our coast. Foreigners operated, first of all, outside the previous territorial limit of six miles, and after this limit had been extended to 12 miles, they have generally speaking, as far as the pelagic industry is concerned, not been taking our fish. The pelagic fishing industry of South West Africa and of the Republic has been harmed for one reason, and one reason only, and that is that there has been shameful over-exploitation by the existing fishing industry. This matter has been dealt with at length in the House previously, and I do not think that there is any point in crying over spilt milk. What I do want to say to the hon. the Minister, however, about the pelagic industry in both South West Africa and the Republic—because although Walvis Bay is, of course, part of the Republic, it is, to all intents and purposes, the pelagic industry of South West Africa—is that suggestions that there are improvements in the situation are, I believe, over-optimistic and I do not think the hon. the Minister should take too much notice of them. Last year …

I think the quota for the Republic should be reduced.

I agree with the hon. the Minister entirely when he says that the quota for the Republic should be reduced. We have been issuing warnings, for years and years, about what would happen to Walvis Bay if there were to be a catastrophe. I have referred, for example, to what happened in California and in other parts of the world where there was over-exploitation. I do not want to quote the figures today, but there has been a near catastrophe at Walvis Bay, and it is no good the fishing industry and the fishing barons of South Africa and Walvis Bay saying that this is just a temporary phenomenon. The graphs show quite clearly that the fishing efforts of South West Africa have increased and that the fish resources have decreased to alarming proportions.

Here I think that it is right for us to say, in this House, that a particular tribute should be paid to Dr. Lochner of Port Elizabeth. Since the late 1960s this man, using mathematical methods quite inexplicable to me, has been able to predict, with considerable accuracy, the actual catches of pelagic fish off the coast of South West Africa. Particularly after we took nearly 2 million tons of fish from South West Africa in 1968, and for a two or three year period after that, he predicted, almost to within 10 000 tons, the actual catches that were to take place in successive seasons. Once again he is warning the department, and he has sent the hon. the Minister certain documentation to show how the industry at Walvis Bay is in danger of total collapse. I therefore commend to the hon. the Minister that he give very serious consideration to the latest representations made to him by Dr. Lochner. I think that not only hon. members in this House but also the public of South Africa and the fishing industry in South Africa, in the long term, will be grateful to this man who has made a magnificent discovery of ways of controlling fish resources, a discovery that I think will become of world significance in due course.

Now that I have dealt briefly with the pelagic fish, I want to say much the same about the rock-lobster industry. There has undoubtedly been an upswing in the catches of rock-lobster off the West coast during the last year, but I think that the indications are that the rock-lobster fishing fleet has moved further south and that catches are, in fact, now taking place off Dassen Island and as far south as Robben Island.

There is over-exploitation in those areas.

Yes, and there are now signs of stress in the so-called Peninsula rock-lobster resources because of the presence of West coast boats that have come down to fish in those waters. I therefore think that some serious consideration must be given to closed seasons along different parts of our coast. In certain instances I think there should be a closed season not merely for one fishing season, but indeed for a couple of years, to give the resources an opportunity to reproduce and grow again.

I also think that consideration might be given to the possibility of zoning, but that is a matter we can deal with on another occasion. The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the activities of the pelagic trawlers. The pelagic trawlers certainly do have an enormous effect on the line fishing species. He referred to kabeljou, but there are plenty of other line fish that also get caught in the purse seine nets. He says that at Stilbaai the kabeljou resource is under threat. That is not only the case at Stilbaai because a similar situation exists at Struisbaai, where the hon. the Minister has had to extend the restrictive limits, within which nets can be used, further out to sea. The same has applied for years and years in False Bay. There have been years of agitation by responsible people, including members of the line fishing communities and scientists, asking the hon. the Minister to close the bay to trawling. I do not want to go into that matter again because I have raised it here so many times. I think, however, that progress has been made. It has been proved, for example, that the demarcation buoy system does not work unless there is proper enforcement, that the patrol boat system certainly has not worked in that particular case and that if there is going to be closure in False Bay it should be from Cape Point to Hangklip.

The hon. the Minister has announced recently that there is to be a special research programme in False Bay involving a special research vessel. I believe that that programme is going to take place over the period of the next year. I would suggest that, representations having been made as strongly as they have been made by so many people over such a long time, the case for closing that bay has been adequately put to the hon. the Minister. There is going to be a research programme and I think it is probably best, in the interests of all people concerned, that the agitation for the closing of that bay should be held back or lifted at least until such time as the research programme has been completed. That is, however, conditional on the hon. the Minister giving an undertaking that that research programme is not going to be prolonged, that, in other words, it should be for a set period of time and that, after that set period of time has expired, a clear decision should be taken based on the results obtained from that research programme, on whether the bay should be closed once and for all or opened for a period of the year. I myself, not being a scientist, have no doubt as to what the result of that survey will be!

The hon. member for Moorreesburg has referred to the need to strike a balance between development and the preservation of the environment and of the ecology of the sea. I agree with him entirely. However, I think there is a further balance that has to be struck, and that is the balance between the export of our fishing products and the use of those fishing products on the local market. I think the tendency has been for the Government to be very favourably inclined towards the fishing industry which in turn wishes to concentrate all its efforts on the export of, for example, pelagic fish and rock-lobsters. I think they have neglected the local market and I do not think it is fair to the public of this country that such a small quota of delicacies such as crayfish and perlemoen should be available to them. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to working out a scheme whereby the local market can also be satisfied.

That is one of the terms of reference of the commission.

As the hon. the Minister says, that is one of the matters to which we will give consideration in the commission.

In passing, there is something I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I refer to the real hardship many of the line-fishing communities are at present undergoing as a result of the fuel prices. For a line-boat, for example, the cost of a litre of fuel has gone up from 11c to approximately 20c in the last few months. I do think a case can be made out for relief to be given to some of the fishing communities who, as communities are entirely dependent on the products of the sea for their living.

With reference to the legislation before us, I think that as regards the composition of the advisory committee, there must not only be a balance between the various branches of the industry represented on that committee, but there must also be representation given to those bodies which have an interest in marine ecology and believe in conservation as well as exploitation. In other words, I think that conservation bodies should also have a voice in that committee. I welcome, naturally, the provision whereby the Railway Police are given additional powers. The hon. the Minister has referred—I see he has some knowledge of these things—to the flourishing black market that exists, particularly in the rock-lobster industry.

I do not have personal experience in that field.

The hon. the Minister says he has no personal experience of that, but there has been a flourishing black market for a long time, and I am afraid to say that there has been corruption at all levels in the fishing industry. I am particularly pleased with the provision whereby the industry is going to be required to provide catch statistics on request. One of the problems there is that catchers, for example, provide quota holders with their catches and that the quota holders have to fill their quotas within a season. When a catcher, for example, makes representations to a quota holder or a packer for statistics reflecting the amount of fish obtained by the quota holder or packer from catchers he is given a blank refusal and, to date at any rate, the department has also refused to furnish the catcher with statistics.

One may ask why the catcher should be given catch statistics. One of the reasons is that the catcher is dependent on his product for his living. The quota-holder very often is not dependent only on rock-lobster, but has also interests in other kinds of fish. It is of vital concern to the catcher that the quota-holder does not abuse his quota and catch in excess of his quota to the detriment of the resource. There is plenty of evidence that can be led to show that many quota-holders catch throughout a fishing season, right up to the last day, something which seems absolutely incredible in the light of the size of their quotas. However, the rock-lobster catcher in Table Bay docks, for example, is only able to catch for a period of about two or three weeks per year before the limited amount he is entitled to catch, is filled. For the rest of the year he has to devote himself to some other fishing activity which is very much more hazardous and less rewarding than the overall activities of quota-holders and packers.

I also think that the provision whereby the hon. the Minister and the department have the power to withdraw licences under certain circumstances, is very important indeed. There have been—and this is generally acknowledged—malpractices and corruption in the fishing industry for a very long time. Until such time as people who are lucky enough to possess licences are in danger of losing those licences, I do not think there will be very much of an improvement in the administrative position. People who have committed abuses of one kind or another, have been taken to court and have been fined but, in comparison with black market prices for the products, the fines they have received have been absolutely minimal and could be paid out of their petty cash.

The fact that all boats will now be licensed as fishing boats is, I think, also to be welcomed, as is the fact that all fishermen, engaged either full-time or part-time, are to be registered and will come within the ambit of this amendment to the Act. There are all sorts of reasons for saying that. Very often the argument is raised why weekend fishermen should be registered and why they should not be able to engage in their sporting activities unhindered. It is no longer a sporting activity, but a weekend business operation of considerable financial gain to the people concerned. I do not really see why a man who is lucky enough to be able to afford to buy a ski-boat and also the engines that go with the ski-boat, should be allowed to take, for example, yellowtail or tuna species in quantity, bring them in and sell them at commercial harbours during weekends in competition with the existing professional fishermen. It is taking the money out of the mouths of those people.

A second consideration is that ski-boaters, just to use an example, do not render returns. The full-time fisherman is required to render a return and it is on the basis of the various returns submitted by the factories and the fishermen themselves that the department is able to work out whether a particular fishing resource is under stress and strain or not and the quotas attached accordingly to those particular fish species. In the light of the combined assault on our resources by professional fishing fleets and weekend anglers, to say nothing of rock anglers, I think that a fictitious picture is built up in the minds of those in the department as to the actual assault on the various fish resources. I might say that I very much doubt whether the part-time angler who uses his ski-boat during weekends accounts to the Receiver of Revenue for his catch!

The last point I want to make, concerns rock anglers. Rock anglers also take their share of the products of the sea. At certain times, when fish are running, the professional fishing fleet, the weekend fishing fleet and rock anglers all combine their efforts to take fish from the sea and one can imagine that they then take considerable quantities of fish. I want to make a suggestion as far as ski-boaters and rock anglers are concerned. I think that, just as the fishing industry is subject to certain quotas, ski-boaters and rock anglers should be subject to some form of limitation as well. I should like to suggest that an investigation be undertaken into the possibility of establishing bag limits for the rock angler and the ski-boat angler.

What does one do in the case of sardines?

Obviously one cannot include in that bag limit such runs as the sardine run off the coast of Natal when, as the hon. member obviously knows, people take fish out of the sea in buckets. However, there must be some form of restriction and control. There was a time, many years ago, when only a few people used to fish over weekends, when the line fishing community was an established fishing community, when weekend anglers were nothing like as many as they are today and when rock anglers were numbered by their thousands, rather than by their hundreds of thousands. Angling of all kinds I think has been one of the fastest growing sports off the South African coast since the war. Obviously it is necessary and the stage has been reached when some reasonable and proper investigation with a view to some reasonable and proper restrictions should be undertaken.

With these words we welcome the Bill. We think it will be a temporary palliative until such time as the consolidated legislation comes before Parliament and I would, once again, say to the hon. the Minister that I do hope that he will sit behind the fishing commission to make sure that it completes its work within a reasonably speedy period of time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear that the hon. the Minister announced this afternoon that a commission has been appointed to examine the various aspects of the fishing industry as well as all other related industries. As the hon. member for Simonstown stated, this is a commission which should have been appointed a long time ago, and we are all grateful and pleased about it. I also want to agree with the hon. member for Simonstown—I cannot disagree with him at all; he is an authority when it comes to the sea and sea fisheries and all the related matters—when he states that there should be control over weekend fishermen. I have problems with that statement of his, because I do not think it is possible to limit the weekend fisherman as far as his catch is concerned. This is something one can try, but I do not think it is something one can carry out.

In connection with ski-boats I fully agree that each vessel which goes to sea should be licensed or registered and should meet certain requirements. So often—I have seen it myself many times—boats which are really just hollow objects go out to sea. Nevertheless, people try to fish from such objects, something which is totally wrong. One should not allow that type of fisherman to go out to sea at all.

I should now like to discuss an industry which I regard as very important, although, just like the hon. member for Parktown, I am far away from the sea. I have a special love for what the sea contains, since I grew up at the seaside. My first love is still the sea.

Disgraceful!

That is next to diamonds, of course. However, there is one matter which troubles me very much because I grew up with it: The shellfish along our coast. I want to refer specifically to perlemoen. I think that very large parts of our coast have already been stripped bare where once there were very rich perlemoen fields. The richest perlemoen fields lie deep under the water where the ordinary man cannot get at them. I therefore want to draw the conclusion that the tremendous reduction in perlemoen must be blamed on the fact that before thoroughgoing research could be carried out about the reproduction, the development and the life-cycle and distribution of this shellfish, perlemoen was allowed to be exploited commercially. From research reports of the Sea Fisheries Division it appeared—the perlemoen divers themselves testified to this—that in some places, perlemoen occurred at a density of 15 to 20 per sq. yard and that 20 000 perlemoen had been taken from a single bed. Even in 1965, 1,5 million pounds of perlemoen was taken from the sea. This represents about 2 million to 2,5 million perlemoen. If we consider that a perlemoen takes seven years before it is ripe for reproduction, and 13 years to reach its maximum size, we can form an idea of how long it takes before that number which is removed can be replaced again by breeding. Thanks to the Sea Fisheries Division, a quota system was introduced in 1968.

By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a few figures to illustrate my statement. In 1968 the quota was fixed at 385 560 kg. In 1969 the quota was reduced to 340 200 kg. In 1970 it was further reduced, very drastically reduced, to 226 796 kg. Since then the quota has gradually been reduced till it came to 181 440 kg in 1978. This year it is fixed at 163 300 kg. This is the quota for six factories, in three of which perlemoen is canned, whereas the other three export frozen perlemoen. During the same period, the number of divers was also reduced, from 120 registered divers in 1968 to a mere 65 this year. When we look at the landed value of the 181 740 kg of perlemoen taken from the sea in 1978, we see that it amounts to approximately R340 000. Its export value was approximately R2 million.

The logical conclusion I have to draw from this is that since 1968, the quota has been reduced annually. I sincerely hope that quota will be reduced every year in future. It may sound peculiar, but I hope that the quota is reduced to such an extent that it will become completely unprofitable for people to export perlemoen. Perlemoen is a delicacy which can be obtained almost nowhere in South Africa today. I recall how, as children, we took perlemoen from the rocks at Hermanus. I recall how up to three or four perlemoen sat on top of one another at low tide. There were literally thousands of perlemoen. At low tide you could walk wherever you wanted to, and without wetting your feet you could take a perlemoen from the rocks.

What is the situation today? I know, because I take perlemoen from the sea myself. I did it at that time and I still do it. Even today I am a very great lover of perlemoen. However, I can no longer walk on the beach and take perlemoen from the rocks. I must now have the necessary equipment and I must swim far and deep to get perlemoen, if I am lucky enough to find them at all. I am absolutely convinced that perlemoen is one of our shellfish that is being wiped out completely. I therefore want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister that since this commission has been appointed …

The Minister always has to do everything.

That is why he is

Minister and head of a department. Surely I have to talk to him, because only he can help me. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that with the appointment of this commission it will be one of its tasks to ensure that the commercial assault on perlemoen will be stopped. I want to support another hon. member and say that I too hope that there will be perlemoen for our descendants as well.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kimberley South has bemoaned the fact that perlemoen has become a delicacy on South African tables, in fact more than a delicacy, because it is almost unobtainable in South Africa. Exported as abalone to elsewhere in the world where people have an appreciation for perlemoen, it is a gastronomic delight. The result is that we in South Africa do not see it. So I feel a certain sympathy with the hon. member when he does bewail the fact that perlemoen is no longer part of the South African diet.

The official Opposition must welcome the news the hon. the Minister has given us, because it has given us a realization that at last on that side of the House there is understanding of the fact that the resources of the sea is not unlimited, that the extent of cropping, of harvesting fish has to be very strictly controlled. I must admit that the rules that govern supplies of fish in the sea are not fully understood. Research is never complete in a matter of this nature, and we find more and more that there are other factors that have to be taken in consideration. We also find more and more that we are very ignorant of what is going on in the sea. We believe that this ignorance has resulted in what the hon. member for Simonstown has called a catastrophe in various sections in the fishing industry in South Africa. We have seen it in South West Africa. This Bill absolves the South African Government from the responsibility for South West Africa. However, we have seen this catastrophe in South West Africa. The hon. member for Simonstown has talked about the pelagic fish, the pilchards, and how the pilchards being caught have fallen almost to nothing.

As a student in Britain I remember very well how the herring industry fell apart. One year herring boats went out from Yarmouth, Lowestoft and other ports in England and Scotland on the east coast, but found no herring.

A similar thing has happened off the coast of South West Africa as far as pelagic fish and pilchards are concerned. There is a considerable investment in factories, but canning operations are decreasing purely because the human breed has dropped all inhibitions. We are now in a situation where lack of control has perhaps wrecked irrevocably an industry which could in fact have been a flourishing industry. It is apparent that if we are to conserve our fish resources, we are going to have to plan for the future.

This is particularly why we welcome not only this bit of legislation, but also the announcement by the hon. the Minister of the appointment of a commission of inquiry to look into the industry. I think we have to realize that control alone is not the only answer. One can make all sorts of rules, but this is not the only answer to the problem. One has to talk about conservation, and active encouragement has to be given, for example, in the field of fish farming, to which the hon. member for Moorreesburg referred. We have to look to the future; we have to create the situation that we do not deplete resources, but make those resources grow. I do not believe that at the present stage we have the knowledge to achieve this.

The hon. member for East London North has given the viewpoint of the New Republican Party.

It is the New Republic Party.

I do apologize, but that name is not very easy to remember. The viewpoint expressed by that party was that this measure would hit the sport fisherman, and that that would be unfair to them. They do not believe that the Act should apply to people who fish purely for sport. It is my belief, however, that fishing no longer is a sport once one starts selling one’s fish. I believe that there are many so-called sport fishermen who are not sport fishermen, but who fish for business purposes. I believe that many boats go out weekend after weekend because the people wish to supplement their incomes, and not because they wish to enjoy fishing as a sport. People who do this have in fact seriously affected the fishing for the true sport fisherman. One need only cite the example of Natal where nowadays it is very difficult to catch fish on some of the banks closest to Durban, because they have been fished out, and not by sports fishermen, but by people who go out ski-boat fishing as a business. The same applies to rock fishermen. One has only to read books of the early days of the century to see what a paradise the Cape Peninsula was for rock fishermen in those days. Now it is the exception rather than the rule to catch any fish at all if one fishes from the coast of the Peninsula.

One only catches rocks.

One catches plenty of rocks if one is not a very skilful fisherman.

A good point was raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay when he said it was not…

That is a rare thing for him.

Yes, that is perhaps something we do not often get from that hon. member. He said that it was not enough merely to legislate, but that one also had to ensure that the legislation could be enforced. This is where the shortcomings in our present fisheries legislation lie. We have controls, we have the legislation, but those controls are inadequate because they are not adequately enforced. I realize that policing legislation like this is very difficult. One is very well aware of the troubles that have been experienced in False Bay, for example, where people have totally ignored existing legislation. The net result has been that False Bay fishing has deteriorated over a number of years. I am not sure that I can agree completely with the hon. member for Simonstown when he says that he is prepared to go along with the situation where False Bay is kept open to commercial fishing for as long as the research continues. He did ask the hon. the Minister for an undertaking that that research would take place fast and that, as soon as the results were known, legislation would be introduced based on the results of that research.

There is only one month to go.

The hon. member says there is only one month to go. I am pleased to hear it, because it means that within a month the hon. the Minister should be in the position to make up his mind …

He meant there is one month left of the season.

Oh, I now understand what the hon. member meant when he interjected to the effect that there was only one month to go.

If you don’t even know when the season ends, what do you know about fish?

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke wants to know what I know about fish. I must tell him that I was actually brought up with fish … [Interjections.]

Poor fish!

This does not mean that I was born in the water or anything of that sort…

Your “mummy” was a mermaid.

Was “daddy” a grey shark, a “lazy grey”? [Interjections.]

I am not sure whether the suggestions as to my parentage coming from hon. members to my left are warranted. I am sure that they are not parliamentary.

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that my knowledge of the fishing industry goes back to my very early years, to a time when my father, during the 1920s and 1930s, was very much concerned with the fishing industry, right up to when he died in the middle of the 1940s. I can remember times when people used to look at the sea and say that the resources of the sea were unlimited. All one had to do was increase one’s skill and the sea would provide for mankind forever. Well, we have seen that this was erroneous thinking. The sea’s resources are limited. We shall begin to see the death of the fishing industry in South Africa unless we are prepared to do something about it. We welcome the announcement of the commission which is to sit—and I am grateful that the hon. the Minister has given me the opportunity to serve on this commission—because we have high hopes that we may be able to arrest the deterioration of what is a dying industry. We have seen countries which have no rights at all despoiling our fishing resources. I have, on occasion, been fishing 20 or 30 miles off Cape Point and have seen Russian, Portuguese, Bulgarian, Spanish, and Japanese trawlers. At one time, off the coast of South West Africa, of the something like 85 trawlers that were counted, only two had their bases or origin in South Africa itself.

The whitefish industry, specifically, has been seriously damaged by people who can only be described as the robbers of the sea. We therefore welcome the provisions in the Bill which hand over control of the fishing industry in South West Africa to the South West African authorities. At this stage it is handed over to Mr. Justice Steyn, but at a later stage it will be handed over to the Government of South West Africa, and it is to be hoped that when that Government does take over it will be in a position to extend the fishing limits off the South West African coast to the same extent that we have been able to extend them off the South African coast. It was a sad thing for me personally, when legislation was passed two or three years ago extending our fishing limits, that we were not in a position to do the same as far as South West Africa was concerned, because the couple of years since then have shown a further marked deterioration in the quantities of fish off the South West African coast.

I now come to the point made by the hon. member for East London North who expressed the viewpoint of the NRP, I think, however, that even as far as rock fishing is concerned, fish are not unlimited. I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown that bag limits are going to have to be introduced. I know that there has been a lot of controversy about shad fishing off the coast of Natal but I remember well, when I was fishing off the harbour wall in Port Elizabeth, how people took away sacks of shad. Going back a few days later I remember finding those very sacks lying by the harbour wall with the fish rotting away. This fish was wasted because people were greedy and were not prepared to settle for what they could eat.

As far as sport fishing is concerned, it is interesting to see that there are very stringent controls in other parts of the world. There are very stringent controls on the size of blue-fin tunny and marlin that can be taken out of the water. In Cairns in Australia, if a marlin is hooked and brought to the side of the boat and is estimated to weigh under 400 kg, it is released and allowed to swim away. The net result is that sport fishing has improved because on occasion the same marlin have been caught for a second or even a third time. This is what one means by conservation and this is what one is talking about when one says that sport fishing must restrict itself so that many more people can enjoy a sport which is, at the moment, enjoyed by very few. The hon. member for Simonstown has said that it is a growing sport and that there are a tremendous number of people who participate in sport fishing. One has to say, too, however, that there are now a tremendous number of people who come down from inland centres to the Peninsula or the Natal coast and who catch nothing because there is nothing left, the resources having been depleted by people who are not sports fishermen but are actually professionals.

Hope springs eternal!

The hon. member for Simonstown suggests that hope springs eternal in the fisherman’s breast, but I think that hope is dead in the breasts of a great number of fishermen because fishing has been so bad for sportsmen over the last few years that the game has hardly been worth the candle.

I think that this legislation must obviously be regarded as interim legislation. I think it was the hon. member for Moorreesburg who made the point that it seemed a little strange that one should be introducing legislation at this stage, just at a time when a commission of inquiry was being appointed to look into the fishing industry. I believe that we do, however, have to adopt interim measures because I think that the situation is very serious indeed. I think it is in clause 11 that reference is made to the implements that can be used for fishing, and in terms of the definition nets are also included. I find it very unfortunate that I can go to a supermarket and be supplied with frozen fish—I think they are called Yankee clippers—which are, in fact, undersized stockfish, stockfish which are no more than 12 in to 14 in, in length and which should never have come out of the water in the first place. This obviously involves aspects such as the sizes of gill nets. I therefore think that there is a need for urgent action in regard to the sizes of fish that may be taken out of the water. I know that there are existing regulations, but I think that those regulations are inadequate and that we are depleting our potential by taking fish of this size out of the water. Unfortunately one has seen instances of fishing boats out at sea catching fish, taking them out of the water, seeing that they are undersized and then throwing them back into the water, but only after they are already dead. The same thing applies to crayfish. I have seen crayfish boats pulling crayfish pots full of crayfish out of the water, many of the crayfish being undersized. The fishermen then sorting through the crayfish, but by the time they get round to throwing many of the small ones back, those small ones are already dead. So there is no real point in throwing them back at all. I therefore think that the commission is going to have to look at the situation in the crayfish industry which returns a great many crayfish to the water when the crayfish are already dead.

I hope that the hon. the Minister, having appointed this commission, is not going to rest on his laurels. I think it is necessary to use the legislation before us at the moment to take fairly urgent action.

That is why I have introduced the legislation now.

Yes, I am very grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to introduce it. He has intimated across the floor of the House that he has introduced it specifically because it is, in fact, necessary to take action, and this action will obviously be taken in terms of regulations that will result from this legislation.

I do not believe that one can think anything but that time is not on our side. If the commission is going to sit for a very long time, for example, ten years—and this point has already been made—we are going to be faced with an industry that is already dead. If the commission is not in a position to report within six to nine months, it might as well not sit at all because by then it would be too late. I therefore hope that by the end of this year the commission will be in a position to report and that the hon. the Minister will be able to come to this House next year with new legislation based on the commission’s report. Then we might be in a position to see a growing fishing industry instead of the dying industry we are seeing at present.

Mr. Speaker, may I say that I think the hon. member for Orange Grove made a very good contribution to this debate. I do not know whether he is not perhaps too much of an alarmist, but I must say that I agree with him in his alarm over many of the sectors he spoke about. It is on that aspect of things I should like to make a few comments. If we analyse the speeches made here today, we find that the hon. member for Kimberley South, the hon. member for Mossel Bay, the hon. member for Simonstown, to a lesser extent the hon. member for East London North, and certainly the other hon. members all expressed varying degrees of concern about marine life in general. They expressed concern either about marine life in a particular region, be it the area where they live or an area of which they have particular knowledge, or about a particular species of which they have a particular knowledge. The refrain that ran through all the speeches held here today was that sea life is vulnerable.

It is for that reason that I have pleasure in referring to “The seas must live” campaign which has been launched by the S.A. Foundation. The assault upon marine life is not only of national or local concern, but also of international concern. This century 65 species of large marine mammals have in fact become extinct. On the World Wild Life Foundation’s endangered list we see that 12 species of whales, porpoises and dolphins are endangered, as well as 9 seal species. Furthermore, 30 sea and coastal birds face extinction. The same is true of turtles along the Natal coast and of marine crocodiles that appear along the Caribbean and South American coasts. For this reason I think we can be very proud in South Africa that the S.A Nature Foundation has entered into the spirit of things and is taking part in the whole international attempt to save, study and conserve the world’s marine resources. I think one can look at the Foundation with a great degree of pride. A few years ago, when the World Wild Life Foundation appealed internationally for 1 000 donors to provide R1 000 each, over 100 of those donors came from South Africa with its small population. Now we again see the S.A. Nature Foundation playing a real role in international wild life conservation, with particular reference to the sea. I think that we will be seeing more and more of “the seas must live” campaign, which was launched a few weeks ago by the S.A. Nature Foundation at Stellenbosch, as that Foundation begins to become more active in this regard. I believe this will ultimately leave us with a public that will be far more aware of the assault on the sea that they are at present.

With great respect, I do not think that a speech such as that of the hon. member for East London North will be heard in this House again after the “The seas must live” campaign has run its course. This is in no way intended to be unfair criticism of the hon. member for East London North. He said that as a young man he used to go to the sea and catch over a ton of cob. Well, Sir, that kind of thing is happening everywhere and the fish populations are collapsing everywhere. In discussing the possibility of an amendment to release fishermen from the obligation of being licensed or having their boats licensed, the hon. member shows a great lack of knowledge of the assault upon the marine resources from this quarter. It is interesting that the sport that has the most known adherents in this country is the angling sport. There are more registered fishermen than there are registered members of any other sport in South Africa. The angling lobby is an extremely powerful one.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay mentioned here today that fish are also of local interest apart from being of national or international interest. I accept that. It is quite within the realms of possibility and indeed feasible that, when the council or whoever decides what is to be caught where, they will consult local opinion and local authorities. We have a precedent for that. Take, for instance, the question of hunting licences.

The provincial authorities decide where one can shoot kudu, springbok or whatever one would like to shoot. They consult with the local authorities on the state of the game population at the time, and then, in consultation with the local authorities, they set certain limits. However, I do not think that somebody catching galjoen should be in a different situation to that of the man who takes his gun to go and shoot springbok. What is the difference in the principle? What is even worse is that, if one is going to catch trout or bass in a dam, one must first buy a licence. I think over 28 000 such licences were issued in the Cape last year. If one is going to catch fish in the estuary of a river, one must buy a licence, but if one walks over the dune and catches in the sea, one does not need a licence. I think that is an unreasonable situation.

One does not need a licence to fish in an estuary.

Yes, one does, because the estuary fish are controlled by the provincial authorities. However, the principle is the same. Whether one catches fish in a dam, an estuary or a river, one needs a licence. I think that the only way in which one can ultimately control the impact of these activities on the marine resources, activities which are gathering momentum to a tremendous extent as people become more mobile, the road systems improve, four-wheel drive vehicles become more readily available, the population doubles, standards of living rise, and also as a result of the boating revolution, is by asking people to buy licences and educating them not to abuse these resources. Last January I saw a photograph in Die Burger—and I am not criticizing Die Burger—depicting a man standing somewhere at Skipskop near Cape Infanta with 64 galjoen arranged in front of him. He had a wide smile on his face.

Would you not? [Interjections.]

What would we say if we were shown a man with a gun in his hand and 64 springbok, kudus or steenbok lying in front of him? I think we must apply the same criteria in respect of marine animals as we apply in respect of land animals. If we do that, we shall be making progress.

Is there a bag limit for springbok?

It depends on the area in which one is hunting; there is also a hunting season. In a particular area the bag limit for springbok or any other species of mammal is dependent upon the known resources of that mammal in that area during a particular season. Sometimes the hunting of a particular species in an area is prohibited completely or is allowed for only two or three months. Sometimes one can hunt males and females, while at other times one can only hunt the rams. There are also the inherent controls exercised by the public of South Africa themselves. For example, if I went shooting and somebody told me to shoot a kudu ewe, I would not do it, even if he tied it up in front of me. That is part of the culture. We must develop that sensitivity also in regard to our marine resources.

We have a great responsibility in respect of these resources. We have increased the size of South Africa’s conservation area by something like 50%. Because of the convex shape of our coast, we have a far greater responsibility in respect of our marine resources than we would otherwise have had. Prince Edward Island, for example, has an area of only 100 square nautical miles, but our span of control around Prince Edward Island covers 126 000 square nautical miles. That is also true in respect of all the other islands and the coastlines we control.

Having spoken about the problem of the assault upon our marine resources, I think it is important that we also talk about the response of this Government to that situation. In the first instance the response of the Government finds expression in this kind of sophisticated legislation which is before us now. It is shown by the kind of steps which have been taken. Decisions are not being taken on an ad hoc basis, but as far as possible we are trying to obtain the information we need. The Government also responded by encouraging the conservation efforts. We know that no sooner was the “Seas must live” campaign launched, when the hon. the Minister proclaimed South Africa’s first island reserve at St. Croix, which now falls under the provincial nature conservation authorities. It is a wonderful island reserve in which the penguins will be protected. Although the penguins are numerous there, they are a threatened species. They also have an important role to play in nature.

While speaking about St Croix and the penguins, I might just say that an appeal was made earlier for more research to be carried out. I think it was the hon. member for Orange Grove who said that there should be more research and that we should know more about what we are doing. That is quite true. For example, one of the things we know little about is the fertilization of the Benguela current. When there is a rainstorm over one of the rocky islands lying in this current, a milky substance can be seen to flow into the sea around the islands. One can clearly see this if one flies over the island. This is due to the guano dissolving in the rainwater and then flowing into the sea. This is also where the food chain begins with the phytoplankton and zooplankton. Then moving up the food chain, one gets the coastal birds, the sea birds, the penguins, etc., which play a very real part in this chain because they again deposit their guano on the rocks and the guano flowing into the sea then fertilizes the Benguela current. This is the kind of thing we know very little about and that we should be looking at, because it is very, very important. The currents become fertilized just as soil becomes fertilized.

I was speaking about St. Croix which has become a provincial reserve, and I want to thank and congratulate the hon. the Minister for that. I think South Africa can be grateful to him because not only was it the right step to proclaim it an island reserve, but it was also a wonderful reserve to choose. It is rich and wonderfully placed, and I am surprised that the hon. members for the Eastern Cape constituencies did not thank the hon. the Minister before I did.

The second area which the hon. the Minister proclaimed, and which I also think is a wonderful thing, was the Groenrivier National Park which stretches 10 km north of Groenrivier and southwards for some 50 km to near the Olifants River mouth. It is 50 km long and stretches for one km out to sea.

We heard a lot today about the collapse of the crayfish industry and it is true that the crayfish industry, like all other marine industries, is under assault. However, the fact that this marine park was proclaimed will serve two functions. In the first instance, it is a wonderful thing to have the west coast ecosystem protected just as the Tsitsikama Reserve protects parts of the east coast. Now we have the protection of the west coast for the first time in our history. I think that is a wonderful thing. I think the hon. the Minister should be thanked and congratulated for that. I also want to say that I think this is going to have a beneficial effect on the crayfish industry because the fishing boats are now coming south to Dassen Island to catch crayfish that are no longer to be found north of the island. I think that 50 km stretch of coast is also going to be a good breeding ground and a regenerating ground for our crayfish resources, apart from the other resources referred to earlier today.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister one further thing. He will remember that last year he proclaimed the intertidal zones of the provincial nature reserves as conservation areas. That proclamation was for an experimental period of 30 months.

I applied to the authorities to have that done.

That is right. I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider making that permanent. From investigations I have already made in connection with the intertidal zones, I think it can be said that the experiment has already proved to be a success and that measures which have already been adopted by the provinces to protect those resources have also been successful. It is becoming clear that climax colonies of birds are being established there. At one place—I think it was at Skipskop—in November 1978 over 400 people travelling in four-wheel drive vehicles came into that little area. The catch there has been fantastic. Therefore the need for protection is clear. Furthermore, I wish to say to the hon. the Minister that whereas already one third of the coast between Skipskop and Infanta is now a reserve, part of the De Hoop Reserve, all of the land along the coast, between there and Infanta, forms private nature reserves. I therefore wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not consider extending the nature reserve—I am now referring to the inter-tidal zone to Infanta—so that it corresponds with the land-based nature reserves all along the coast. At present we have the west coast covered and we have the island of St Croix covered, and that would give us the sort of control on the south coast as we already have further up on the east coast of the Cape.

The last matter I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is that of False Bay. Again we must thank him for his sensitive handling of the whole situation in False Bay. Regardless of what might happen in False Bay, whether we proclaim the whole bay, or part of it, or whether we proclaim certain species for particular periods of time, or whatever else the results of his findings might indicate, the hon. the Minister must consider proclaiming that piece of coast which is adjacent to the Cape Point nature reserve, for a distance of say 500 metres into the surf, as a marine area.

From Cape Point to where?

From Cape Point to Miller’s Point, the whole of the coastline of the nature reserve. The hon. the Minister has established the precedent at Rocher’s Pan, Goukamma and De Hoop that where a reserve is on the coast, the inter-tidal zone is transferred to the reserve. I suggest that we apply the same principle to this reserve which is controlled by the local authority and that we transfer the inter-tidal zone at False Bay in the same way because it is the land-based authority that can best control the area since it controls access, has patrols and what have you.

Finally, I should like to refer to fresh-water fish. The hon. member for Moorreesburg said we should take a closer look at sea farming. He mentioned the example of Japan. I know that there are over 3 000 registered sea farmers in Japan. However, I believe that our actual potential does not lie in the sea, not from the farming point of view that is, because of the wild, unprotected and savage nature of our coastline. As in the case of Taiwan and some other countries, the future in this respect lies in our fresh water resources. We have 17 000 000 000 cubic metres of impounded fresh water in South Africa. If we were to give that water to Taiwan it would enable them to feed half of S.E. Asia. I believe that, apart from people perhaps sailing their boats on it, we do not properly exploit our fresh water resources. Therefore, I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider perhaps sending a high official of Sea Fisheries to Taiwan for a couple of years to study the sea-farming technology in that country. In that way we could bring the appropriate technology and know-how to South Africa to help us make a beginning with our own fresh-water fish-farming industry. It is a low-capital industry, the type of industry which one can, for example, pass on to our tribal Blacks.

We already have a fish-utilization pattern, the acceptance amongst most Blacks of eating fish. I believe there could be a promising future for us in exploiting the technological expertise of the Taiwanese in this regard. We should either try to buy this technology, or perhaps consider bringing some of those Taiwanese experts to South Africa. We can even grant them certain marketing rights in exchange for their know-how. On the other hand we could also try to train our own people in this field. However, I believe that one way or the other—and there are many alternatives—that particular Taiwanese technology should be brought to South Africa. The important thing is that we must start right now.

*I recall a time when everybody said that we could not cultivate tea in South Africa. There was also a time when it was believed that coffee could not be cultivated in South Africa. Long ago even the faith in the cultivation of cotton did not exist. There were so many things people thought that we could not do in South Africa. Yet today we are doing all those things. Therefore I believe that there is in fact a possibility that we can breed freshwater fish as well. I think, for example, of one specific type of marine plant, a plant that grows up to 13 metres long in eight months. I agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg when he says that we should acquire and encourage this technology. Since the hon. the Minister is now going to establish a Fisheries Advisory Council in terms of the proposed new section 2, it is also necessary for us to take note of the provision of the proposed new section 2(2)(b)(viii), which reads as follows—

†If the hon. the Minister would consider to appoint perhaps someone with a specialized knowledge of mari-culture, with a specific reference to fresh-water farming, I suggest it would be just the right thing to do. Hon. members will remember that it was only last year that the hon. the Minister’s department gained control over the fresh water resources of South Africa. I believe the department should now begin to concentrate in all seriousness on the development of those resources.

With these few words I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister with this very enlightened piece of legislation. We will be supporting it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that this has been a very interesting debate, particularly from the point of view that the hon. the Minister is dealing here with a very extensive resource in South Africa, a major industry which is in very serious trouble. The action taken by the hon. the Minister in terms of this proposed legislation reflects his intention of trying to recoup what has been lost during the past few years. I can well remember the hon. member for Simonstown—one can almost say as a pioneer— requesting this sort of legislation, legislation to ward off what, we now see, has taken place. That is the catastrophe referred to by the hon. member for Simonstown. This is nothing new. It has been going on for a number of years. The hon. the Minister will remember that it was raised many years ago, and that the name of Dr. Lochner has been used many times in this House by the hon. member for Simonstown.

What we have here is a Bill dealing with the fishing industry, an industry which has made a tremendous contribution to the wellbeing of many people in South Africa and to the national income of our country. The debate has, however, also taken an interesting turn in that a matter raised by our party has drawn very interesting responses from all sides of the House. That is the question of attempting to apply to the sport fishermen restrictions which the hon. the Minister is quite correct in applying on a large scale to a more extensive operation. We feel that the sport fisherman is someone who only incidentally happens to be included in this particular piece of legislation. I do not think the hon. he Minister set out with the deliberate intention of getting hold of sport fishermen as such when he introduced this Bill. The Bill was introduced to deal with the wide spectrum of the fishing industry and it is only incidental that the sport fisherman is affected by it. However, I believe that we are totally justified in raising this matter with the hon. the Minister, because of the importance attached to sport fishing from all points of view, from the point of view of the tourist— and the hon. the Minister of Tourism is also sitting here in the House now—as well as from the point of view of recreation, and many other points of view. If the hon. the Minister is going to visit upon sport fishermen all kinds of requirements and bothering restrictions, things that are going to counteract the interests of sport fishing as such, it is going to affect not only local communities, but also the big fishing industry as a whole.

That is not all. If one looks, for example, at the application of the general sales tax, which derives a great deal of revenue from the sale of fishing and angling equipment, I believe one can notice the ramifications of the private individual in sport fishing. The question of ski-boats is a matter which has also been raised here. Ski-boat owners should be properly controlled because they too play a major role in the depletion of our fishing resources. I must confess that one gets the impression that there are some very fortunate fishermen in this House. Everybody here seems to think that all one has to do is to go down to the sea, sail out in a boat and fill it up with fish, and then to come back and sell the catch at a handsome profit, that being the end of the story. Of course, it is not like that at all. People who build or buy ski-boats— most of them, I would say—are primarily interested in fishing as a sport. Only incidentally do they make a catch which they can sell in order to pay for the expense of their sport.

I can see the hon. the Minister’s problem. He is going to require returns merely for the scientific purpose of attempting to regulate fishing along the coast.

I am merely trying to assist…

Quite correct. That is perfectly correct. The hon. member for Maitland likened this effort of the hon. the Minister to the control over springbok and other game. However, I believe there is a very profound difference. That is in fact the purpose of this amending legislation. In the case of the game population one knows where the resources are. On the other hand, as far as the marine population is concerned, one has no known resource. Anybody who has waited for the sardines to appear along the Natal coast will know that these things happen only when nature and time and the Lord himself come along and make them happen.

What about the carrier pigeons?

The hon. member asks about carrier pigeons. I am sure he is referring to the passenger pigeons in the USA. However, I do not want to be diverted from my plea. What the hon. the Minister is trying to do is to obtain information.

What we would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister, and the reason why we raise the point, is that there are already strong bodies organizing ski-boat fishing. They already carry out a great deal of control and take the trouble to ensure that any greenhorn or rooky does not just get on a ski-boat and goes out to sea again. Our Natal coast is perhaps a bit different from the coast in the Cape Province. One takes one’s life into one’s hands when one goes out on that coast. However, there is a very strong ski-boat movement on the Natal coast, people who are concerned and will take the trouble to go out of their way to instruct other people who come in and wish to join this particular activity, which is very rewarding activity. However, we have two problems. There is an established interest in ski-boats on the part of people who go out regularly for weekends for their own enjoyment. There is also an influx of ski-boats from over the borders, people who come on holiday.

I would like to make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister, that where local communities can control a local ski-boat population, it would be entirely fair if we were to say to the hon. the Minister that he could require those people to be members of a ski-boat association or a ski-boat club. He could then request the club or negotiate with a club to obtain the kind of return that he wants. In this way it would probably be done more efficiently, because there is a local body of people here who are highly responsible and who themselves care about the stocks of fish in their area. The hon. the Minister would therefore have their full co-operation. However, there is the additional problem of people who come from outside whom you cannot fairly require to join a club of that nature, because they are only temporary. They may come to Margate the one year and go somewhere else the following year. This is a particular problem at Sordwana Bay where there is a massive influx of ski-boats. It would be impossible to have a regulatory body there because there is no permanent population.

We do see the hon. the Minister’s problem. However, we wish to make the point that in requiring everybody who use ski-boats to come under the umbrella of this legislation, is to do a disservice to people who are primarily sports fishermen. For that reason we would suggest, and we ask the hon. the Minister for his consideration when he replies to the Second Reading debate, that it might be possible to have registered members of ski-boat clubs either exempted or be allowed to regulate their own affairs in conjunction and in co-operation with the Department of Economic Affairs. In that way the imposition on them of many things which are going to be a burden to them and which perhaps some of them will not willingly do, might affect the relationship between the hon. the Minister and his department on the one side and the users of the ski-boats on the other side, people who might under other circumstances willingly give the information which is required. However, if it is something that is forced upon them, they might tend to be “’n bietjie steeks” and might not do what the hon. the Minister is after.

The other point is in connection with the people who fish with rod and line. We find that on all sides of the House there is general agreement with the idea of a bag limit, for instance three shad per rod per day on the Natal coast One of the biggest problems is how the hon. the Minister is going to apply the legislation that he has proposed to the ordinary private fisherman.

The hon. member for East London North mentioned the sugar-cane industry in Natal where there are many thousands of Indians who go to fish every afternoon and to whom the fish that they catch is a very important source of protein in their daily diet. I do not think that the hon. the Minister is attempting to impose upon those people the obligation that they either should have a licence or render returns. I do not think it is reasonable or practical. There is a bag limit on shad. There are many people who are now involved in the exercise of that control. However, to expect from everybody who goes down to the beach to fish, that they should now be subject to certain restrictions …

The Bill does not require that.

One of the problems we have is in the interpretation of the Bill and we will argue this with the hon. the Minister in the Committee Stage. We will then attempt to introduce an amendment that we think will ensure that those people will be excluded. This is what you are attempting to impose upon these people, and it applies to everyone who sells fish.

Where has the status quo got us?

If a man catches fish and has a surplus of fish which he does not require which he then markets, he is doing, as we understand in terms of the clause …

That is correct, because then he is not just catching the fish; he is also selling it.

I am glad that we have reached some accord in regard to the matter, because the point that I am making is that there are many thousands of people who, on an afternoon, will go down to the coast and who may catch three, four, five or six fish—whatever the amount might be—and who will sell some on their way home. In the light of the practical administration of what is required by the hon. the Minister, in terms of the provisions of the clause, we think that it simply will not work. He will not be able to carry it out, much as we should desire to have it done. We agree entirely with the principle of having the scientific knowledge garnered, as the hon. the Minister is trying to do. I therefore think the hon. the Minister must accept the fact that the private fisherman, one who fishes with a rod and a line from the rocks or from the beach, is not going to be included in the purview of the Bill that he has put forward …

You cannot expect a man to stop fishing when the fish is biting.

That is exactly our point. [Interjections.] That is exactly what we are saying. Our point is that when the fish are biting, very few people are going to put any fish back. I agree that the bag limit must be reasonable, but it will happen time and time again that people are going to be prosecuted for breaking that limit. We therefore welcome the attempt by the hon. the Minister to introduce some kind of control in this respect. We have our doubts, however, in regard to the practical implementation of the measure. The hon. the Minister is trying to cope with a commercial situation, where people who fish either part-time or full-time, do so virtually for their livelihood. That is what the hon. the Minister is trying to get at. There are other people, however, who have other occupations, but who also fish. The problem now is to find those people, and to place them in some kind of structure which will give the hon. the Minister the information that he requires.

For that reason we support the Bill, although we have serious reservations. But these we shall raise with the hon. the Minister again during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to support the Bill together with hon. members on both sides of the House and to assist in piloting the Bill through the House. The hon. member for Mooi River confined himself for the most part to two matters. In the first place he referred to ski-boat owners and then also to private fishermen who, according to him, go to our beaches in their thousands after work in the afternoons to catch a fish or two. I believe the hon. the Minister will discuss the matter at length. After all, the hon. the Minister is a fair man, and I am sure he will not do the individual an injustice. I believe the hon. the Minister would even agree with the furnished reply by the hon. the Minister of Transport in this regard.

I do not live on the coast; I live otherside the mountains. However, I want to say a few words in this debate. In the Bible one reads about fish and wine … [Interjections.] But as a person from the winelands, I too want to advance a few ideas about the matter.

Is that what you call pickled fish?

We are all aware of the fact that agricultural land in South Africa and throughout the world, is dwindling for a number of reasons. It is perhaps as a result of land development, the construction of roads and the building of cities and towns. Another very important aspect to be borne in mind is that food is becoming scarcer. Since our population is growing—ours is perhaps growing faster than those of other countries— the experts investigating this matter are of the opinion that famine will perhaps be part of our daily lives in future and that many people will find it difficult to find enough food every day. For that reason the sea is being turned to as a new food resource. That is why it is so important that not only in South Africa, but throughout the world, legislation is being introduced or will be introduced in future to promote the correct utilization and development of this resource. An hon. member said earlier that we should perhaps bear the blame for the present situation, because so much waste and over exploitation has occurred in the past. It can never be denied that South Africa is a paradise. Many years ago buck in their millions roamed the plains of our country—just think of the Karoo where they lived by the million. Today there is almost no game left, except here and there in a few reserves and on farms where they are being protected. I agree with the hon. member who said that if we do not conserve this food resource, exploit it properly with the aid of research and ensure that no further extermination takes place, this resource might also become a Karoo one day in the sense that the Karoo was a game paradise many years ago, but that no game is to be found there today.

Another member spoke about a dying industry and called for a restructuring of the fishing industry. I agree with him and for that reason I am grateful that this commission has been appointed. The commission will have to act promptly. This commission had already been promised a few months ago by the hon. the Minister. As long ago as 21 December 1978 the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs stated that he felt an in-depth inquiry into the marine life in general should be carried out. I am grateful that the hon. the Minister announced it today and that he will ensure as in other matters which he handles, that the activities of the commission will commence without delay and that the commission will publish a report which will help conserve what should be conserved.

Why are we so concerned about this matter? The hon. member for Simonstown submitted certain arguments in favour of the conservation and protection of our marine life as far back as 1971. In support of his argument he quoted a certain Dr. Lochner—I do not know the gentleman, but he has been quoted many times in this House. Even the newspaper Namib Times of Walvis Bay warns against abuse of the food resources of the sea and concludes by saying the following on this point—

I want to mention a few other examples from another source on how the food resources of the sea have been abused in recent years. A report in The Argus of 8 March 1979 says Russian fishing trawlers have caught 1 047 000 tons of fish along our coastline in the past financial year. Spanish trawlers caught 175 863 tons and Polish trawlers, 134 635 tons of fish in our coastal waters. It is important to note, however, that the Russians have caught more fish in our waters during the past year than all the South African boats together, which caught only 991 747 tons of fish. It is important, therefore, that this commission should soon commence its work and bring out a report which will enable the hon. the Minister to take drastic steps in order to conserve and save our food resources in the sea.

I think the hon. member for Orange Grove is an old warhorse who is always on the losing side and for that reason he has perhaps become rather bitter. Even in a matter like this, where politics should not be dragged in, and where we should all be in agreement, his first words in this debate were: “At last that side of the House is becoming aware …” Why should he drag politics into this matter? This is certainly a matter of importance to every inhabitant of our country. He went On to say: “Time is not on our side”. Everybody is in a pessimistic mood today. In every speech made, reference is made to the tremendous dangers which threaten us if we do not pay attention to this matter. For that reason it is a privilege to me to support this Bill.

The fisherman with his fishing rod at the fishing waters, is basically a conservation agent. In this regard I want to mention one name. This is a person who was known everywhere and also played top class rugby years ago. I refer to the late Ferdie Bergh. He had a farm at the mouth of the Breë River and he practised conservation on this farm and the coastal area there. People who went fishing there with him were privileged. Not a morsel could be wasted. I want to illustrate how conservation-conscious he was. One afternoon, when people were driving with him, a snake slid across the road. One of the people on the truck cried out: “Snake, snake!” Ferdie Bergh stopped and asked the person: “What is wrong? Did the snake annoy you? Why should you bother him?” That was the kind of conservationist he was.

It is unbiblical!

Do not tell me it is unbiblical. He was a man who was reluctant to kill unnecessarily an animal or a reptile with a role to play in nature. I want to pay tribute to the people who own land along our coast, be it plots, seaside resorts or farms, for being conservation conscious, now and in the past.

As the hon. member for Maitland indicated, there are approximately more than 500 000 anglers in South Africa. In this regard I just want to quote two people. I do not say they are correct, but both of them are learned people on the staff of universities. One of them is Dr. John Grindley of the Department of Environmental Studies at the University of Cape Town. He says—

Another expert, Dr. Erasmus, of the University of Port Elizabeth says—

Therefore it is as well to have this Bill before the House and to have a commission appointed to investigate matters so that the sea can remain a food resource for us for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that if we want a long discussion of the Bill in this House there must be a general consensus of opinion on the subject of the Bill, as is the case today. I welcome the standpoints and the contributions of hon. members in regard to the Bill. I think hon. members will understand that at this stage I cannot react to everything said by everyone.

However, I want to make a few general statements about matters raised in the course of the debate. All hon. members have stressed the importance of the industry concerned. All have stressed that if we are to utilize this resource properly, there is a need for proper conservation to be implemented.

As regards the fishing industry in our country we once again have the important facet that we must duly reconcile and unite the various needs with each other. On the one hand the utilization of the resource must be permitted but on the other it must be done in such a way that the utilization of the resource can be sustained and continuous. For that reason the conservation of the resource must not be lost sight of and the two facets therefore have to be reconciled with one another. In the nature of the matter it is important that if we are to reconcile the two aims of use and conservation, we must have the knowledge on the basis of which we can assess the utilizable resource, taking into account the aims we wish to achieve.

This brings me to the one aspect which in fact formed the subject of the debate, viz. the new definition of “fisherman” and “fishing boat”. The hon. members of the NRP argue that in effect this legislation will result in our placing the sport of angling within the ambit of the provisions of the Act. At this stage I want to say that we must bear in mind—in this regard I can only agree with the hon. members for Simonstown and Maitland—that the number of people making use of marine resources has increased and that the quantity of fish taken from the sea has also increased. To date, as far as determining the utilizable part of the resource is concerned, we have only the statistics relating to people registered in terms of the existing Act, people we could compel to provide certain statistics to the department. It is a fact, however—and we cannot get away from it—that due to the fact that people are taking increasingly to the sport of angling and fishing, their numbers have increased at a tremendous rate over the years.

Transvalers also catch fish.

There is no doubt whatsoever about that. The fact is that due to the increase in their numbers and improved angling and catching methods, the volume of fish that these people take out of the sea can have an important effect on the determining of the utilizable resource. Now my problem is a practical one, viz. how my department can be placed in a position to obtain the information, to be able to determine the volume taken from the sea by this specific sector because it has a significant effect on determining the utilizable part of the resource. I want to refer to an example. The hon. member for Mossel Bay will be able to confirm this. He was so friendly as to ask me last week to pay a visit to his constituency where the national rock and beach angling championships were taking place. On the first day, 15,5 tons of fish were caught! This gives us an indication of the quantity of fish—I am not viewing this critically—being caught. [Interjections.] Now hon. members can understand what effect this can have on the resource. The hon. members for Mooi River and East London North will concede that if one leaves those statistics out of one’s calculations, one will be unable to draw the correct conclusions in regard to the maximum permissible catch for a specific year. I concede that due to the definition of “fisherman” and “fishing boat” one will quite probably enclose in the net of the Act people whom one would not wish to have there. On the other hand I think that hon. members will concede that it is clearly a matter of personal choice whether one wishes to be subject to the provisions of the Act or not. There is only one thing that determines that and that is whether the person concerned sells the fish he catches. If he does not sell them then he has no problem. For the lack of a better formulation, I am unable to accede at this stage to the request that I should exclude them. As a reasonable man, however, I want to say that I am quite prepared to give hon. members a hearing as regards a re-formulation of the definition, but on one condition.

The quantity sold is a good yardstick.

Yes, the hon. member states that the quantity sold serves as a good yardstick. At the moment it is the only yardstick we can use. I am quite prepared to give hon. members a hearing if they agree that I must obtain the statistics with regard to people catching fish for commercial purposes or for money, statistics I must have in order to consider whether there is a possibility of our determining the effect of their activities. I fear that this is my basic problem. I am condemning nobody. I do not wish to limit the number of ski-boats or anglers.

For the purposes of the determining of the maximum utilizable quantity of fish per annum, I just want to be able to know what quantity they catch. That is the point at issue. The fact is that the people who practice the sport of angling or fishing to an increasing extent derive commercial benefit from it even though they use the money for the purchase of their equipment. The fact is however that we must be able to obtain the information from them because this has a significant effect on the determining of the permissible catch from year to year. If hon. members on that side of the House have misgivings I want to say that I can understand those misgivings. However, they can come up with a proposal as to how I can achieve the aims that I must achieve and I shall be quite prepared to consider whether it is possible to accommodate them. I do not think we must spend too much time on the discussion of this specific facet.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg made a very interesting contribution this afternoon. I want to tell him that I agree with him. He asked me why I was now introducing legislation whereas I had appointed a parliamentary commission to investigate certain things. He did me the favour of saying that he himself could think of three reasons why I had to introduce this legislation. The reasons he provided were very intelligent reasons because basically they are the reasons why this Bill was introduced. If they look at the terms of reference we gave the commission, hon. members will see that basically they affect the structure of the fishing industry and the granting of rights to specific people. There are members of the commission—hon. members will not reproach me for saying this to them—who have adopted standpoints from time to time for or against specific facets of the subjects of investigation by and the terms of reference of the commission. I just want to express one hope and that is that whereas some of the hon. members who are going to serve on this commission have adopted strong standpoints concerning specific facets, I nevertheless believe that as responsible members of this House they will not go into the commission with preconceived standpoints but that they will be prepared ultimately to formulate their standpoints on the basis of the evidence submitted to them. If we do not deal with the matter in this way then we could just as well have done so in this House as we did this afternoon by putting our standpoints to each other until a decision is taken.

I want to advance a second argument which in my opinion is equally important, and that is that marine life and its exploitation is important. The hon. member referred to the exploitation of a specific type of seaweed resource in his area. The fact is that due to the harbour development at Saldanha that specific type of seaweed has been totally exterminated. The Department of Industries considered that it would be worthwhile to investigate the possibility of cultivating it on an experimental basis. The hon. member advanced the argument that one must reconcile the standpoints of different people in society. According to him the standpoint of the ecologist or the conservation conscious person must be reconciled with the standpoint of the man involved in the commercial industry. However, that is unfortunately not all one has to reconcile. One often has to reconcile various groups within the commercial sector. I want to refer to an example. There is not the slightest doubt that the interests of the people who exploit or utilize the resource whether it be for sporting purposes, commercial purposes or both, also clash in many instances. The very emotionally loaded history of False Bay is the best example of this. The hon. member for Simonstown will be able to confirm this. The people who originally began in False Bay were not the conservationists but the anglers. Their interests began to clash with those of other people also exploiting the resource.

They are professional line fishermen.

Quite right. The hon. member confirms what I am saying. At a later stage the conservationists came along and the matter became so confused that it now seems that it is only the conservationists who are pleading for the closure or the partial closure of False Bay. The hon. member states that he agrees with me.

I said that it was a joint effort.

Of course! The only statement I want to make is that in the first instance we have a clash of interests between the people utilizing the resource, and that is where the initial representations came from. Subsequently the conservationists joined one group because that group wanted to eliminate the other group. Consequently it is a constant process of reconciliation of conflicting interests.

That is all I want to say in this regard. And just to illustrate the point further I just want to point out that the conservation of the sea and the conservation of nature do not conflict; they go together. I have appointed an interdepartmental committee in this regard to consider the possibility of the establishment of sea reserves. The hon. member for Maitland referred to this and I thank him for his friendly remarks in this regard.

He is a friendly fellow.

And very intelligent. When one already has two characteristics, one does far better.

What was the real purpose of the appointment of the interdepartmental committee? It was specifically to investigate the establishment of sea reserves, for the sake, inter alia, of their preservation for posterity. That committee is an interdepartmental committee which did not serve interest groups and hon. members will note from its composition that it did not serve interest groups. That committee came up with very important recommendations, and just for the sake of the record, because I should like to link up with the hon. member for Simonstown in regard to the False Bay story, I want to point out specifically that the committee made recommendations relating to False Bay. The committee recommended that only a certain area extending 3 km along the western part of False Bay be set aside as a reserve. I agree with that. However, the committee never recommended on any basis that False Bay become a marine reserve. This means therefore that we should consider how False Bay can be utilized in such a way that we can again serve the interests and the aims of all the people. Then we do so with great willingness; not in an atmosphere of emotionally loaded agitations but on the basis of factual information. Consequently, I want to say in this regard, secondly, that False Bay was open to the trawler industry for the entire season just as the rest of the coast was. On the basis of representations made by the hon. member for Simonstown, the hon. member for False Bay and others we decided not to open False Bay but to close False Bay for the greater part of the year. The de facto situation is that whereas in the past, False Bay was open for the same period as the fishing season, it is now only open for three and a half months but is closed for eight and a half months. So one gets a little irritated when the impression is given that the situation is that whereas False Bay was once closed, it is now being thrown open, when in fact the contrary is true.

That statement is an oversimplification.

No, it is not. It is not an oversimplification. I want to make the statement once again—everyone has conceded this; the hon. member can confirm it—that in fact insufficient evidence was submitted for the closure of False Bay. Surely those are the facts. However, what have we done now? Apart from the fact that we have closed it and that its season lasts for only three and a half months of the year, whereas the season for the rest of the coast is much longer, we took a second step. I announced that I was instructing the department to carry out a special scientific investigation regarding the one dispute among the various interest groups, namely the effect of the trawler industry on angling fish in this specific area. I indicated that in order to come to any meaningful conclusion it would have to be done over a period of 12 months. This, too, is in my opinion being suppressed unfairly, and consequently I want to make an appeal for reasonableness once again, and for at least a rational element in this matter. Consequently I greatly appreciate the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Simonstown to the effect that at the moment this dispute must be shelved until we have the results of the investigation. I undertake to expedite that investigation by expediting the activities of my department as much as possible so that we can discuss the matter with each other on a basis of facts and not on a basis of emotion. I wish to make that appeal.

It is true that there is another sphere where the interests clash. There are conflicting interests between the people holding the quotas in regard to the products of the sea and those who have to obtain the catch from the sea. This is another sphere in which people clash with each other from time to time. Consequently this is another of the spheres which I must ask the commissioners to give their attention to and tell us how to solve the problem taking into account the history of the exploitation rights of the industry. We must make no mistake; the investment in this industry is a very costly and major investment for the people who have invested in it. They have built up vested rights. It is a principle of our system that one can only interfere with vested rights if it is in the national interests to do so. Consequently we are again on sensitive terrain from the emotional point of view as well as the commercial interests of the people involved. I have therefore issued instructions in this regard because I am aware that people adopt standpoints, often groundlessly and just as often on good grounds, between these two groups in particular, the packers and the exporters of the crayfish and the crayfish catchers, that a cost investigation be carried out so that we can decide, on a scientific basis, which of the standpoints are supported and confirmed by the facts. I have also indicated that I was prepared to do this with regard to the abalone industry as well. This is in fact being done.

I mention this only to make a point, namely that we are dealing here with a situation where people enjoy the benefits of the assets of the sea without putting anything into it. When one gets something for free it becomes more and more difficult to deal with it. That is why the commissioners were instructed, secondly, to consider whether that structure should be perpetuated or not. In my opinion it is important to bear in mind that we are engaged in the exploitation of an industry which is regarded as an agricultural industry in other countries. The only difference is that it is not on land but on sea. Anyone who wishes to enjoy the benefit of what the soil can give us has to fertilize and plan his lands and has to conserve his resource, whereas this one is not conserved by its users but by the State. I do not wish to enter into an argument at this point as to whether this is right or wrong; I want the commission to advise me as to whether it is right or wrong. There is no doubt, however, that we must consider whether it is right.

Hon. members have also discussed marine farming. I want to say to the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for Moorreesburg that we amended the Industrial Development Corporation Act last year and that corporation, among other things, has to carry out research and provide us with advice specifically with regard to marine fanning. Their services are available to the private sector and I hope that the private sector will make more use of it.