Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition supports this amending Bill and, seen in the light of the circumstances, I feel that it is not necessary to go into this Bill in detail.

I only have a few remarks to make about it. The aim of the Bill can be briefly summarised as measures which are being taken to allow the lessor either to invest such portion of a deposit which is demanded or accepted in respect of damage to a dwelling or loss of keys, with a banking institution or a building society or to deposit it in a savings account in the post office savings bank. The lessor is also compelled to provide proof thereof at the request of an inspector.

The Bill proposes to amend Section 37 of Act 80 of 1976, which envisages an extension of the section in question in order to enable the lessor to invest the relevant portion of the deposit, as has already been said, with various institutions. It is furthermore provided that the interest which must be added to that deposit, will be earned at the institution where it was so invested or deposited. This amendment eliminates certain doubts which existed. We are of the opinion that it is a meaningful amendment, and on behalf of the CP we gladly support this amendment.

Mr Chairman, in supporting this amendment to the Rent Control Act, I wish first of all not so much to enter into debate as to express my feelings on this particular matter, since the hon the Minister is present.

This whole question of rent control has, from the time of the tricameral system, given us much to think about. This is so because when the tricameral system came about, there was no clear-cut policy as to the workings of the Rent Control Board in the various areas of South Africa. Therefore you, Mr Chairman, will be aware that initially we had so much criticism and so many problems in that the board did not help the Indian, and I am quite sure the Coloured, communities in as far as their rent control problems were concerned.

I want the hon the Minister to take note that we have to look at the constitution and the workings of the Rent Control Board in order that this matter be resolved, since the House of Delegates came under tremendous criticism and pressure when I was a Minister in that there was no real redress for the problems, and nobody was prepared to assist because there was a slight error in the gazetting of an amendment which the House of Assembly had put; by the hon the Minister of Housing and Works.

I believe that since there is such a big backlog in housing for the Indian community itself, running to over 40 000, and having heard recently about the high interest rates that the building societies are to charge in view of an increase in the prime rate by the Reserve Bank, we are going to have a tremendous problem in trying to address ourselves to the self-help housing problem in this country which the Government initiated in 1983. Therefore I believe we may have to look at how rent control can be brought in to help the poorer community until the housing problem is resolved.

This particular amendment addresses a problem we have in that the deposit that was paid was in terms of the Act only permitted to be invested in a building society. The scope of investment has been widened to include banking institutions registered terms of the Banks Act of 1965 a mutual building societies registered in terms of the Mutual Building Societies Act of 1965, building societies, registered in terms of the Building Societies Act of 1986 or the post office savings bank. The building society was previously the only institution and therefore it gives a much wider coverage for investment and it makes provision for the fact that the person who has paid in the deposit shall be given the due interest at that particular time.

I wish to emphasise, however, that we feel tremendously unhappy about the way in which this Rent Control Act has been administered and we want the hon the Minister to take note that we need to have further discussion with him on this particular matter.

Although this particular matter is not before us today, we wanted to take the opportunity of stating the fact that if the initiative created for self-help is going to be dampened by high costs and interest rates, it is going to be difficult to try and catch up on housing problems in South Africa.

Rent control might possibly have to be initiated for the communities where housing has suffered a great backlog and we are going to have a tremendous number of problems. This is coming out very clearly from the different areas that we represent. In fact, there is also tremendous pressure from the extra-parliamentary forces because we are unable to present them with any thing which has become equal. We therefore support this small amendment, bearing in mind the views that I wish the hon the Minister to take into account. I think the Cabinet should also remember that the alarming rates of interest are going to dampen the Government’s approach to self-help in South Africa.

I wish to conclude with a warning that we will not be able to catch up on our housing backlog if the interest rate is going to go. This should not be discussed in this debate but I think it is something which is connected with the whole problem of why the Rent Control Act was introduced in South Africa. We have to take serious cognizance of the realities as the other countries in the world have done. Interest rates for self-help housing will have to be set at a certain fixed rate in order to get people involved, otherwise we will not be able to catch up. The Government will then to a great extent have to come back to subsidised housing.

Mr Chairman, this amendment actually only bears reference to section 37 of Act No 80 of 1976. Section 37(3)(b) of the principal Act reads that the deposit demanded or accepted by a lessor in respect of damage to a dwelling or loss of keys, may only be invested with a building society.

This amendment now makes provision for the present section to be extended so as to enable the lessor not only to invest the relevant part of the deposit with a building society, but also with a banking institution which is registered in terms of the Banks Act, Act No 23 of 1965, or it can be invested with a mutual building society which is registered in terms of the Mutual Building Societies Act, Act No 24 of 1965, or with a building society which is registered in terms of the Building Societies Act, Act No 82 of 1986.

It may also be deposited in a savings account in the post office savings bank. Upon the expiry of this lease, the lessor must refund to the lessee the deposit thus invested, minus any deductions but including the interest earned at the institution where it was invested or deposited. This allows the lessor more latitude for investing his deposit. With these changes we support this amendment wholeheartedly.

Mr Chairman, the previous speakers explained the purpose of the amendment in great detail, and on behalf of this side of the Assembly I wish to say that we also support the amendment.

†The hon member for Red Hill referred to the question of interest rates and how they adversely affect people in the lower-income communities. I think we are all concerned about that, but the hon member will concede that this is not really a matter that applies to this piece of legislation. I am sure the hon the Minister will take note of what he said about the administration of the Rent Control Act. I think the changes to this legislation have become necessary because of changing circumstances. Therefore, I am glad that all hon members support the legislation, as I do.

Mr Chairman, …

Order! The hon member for Umzinto’s name appears on the speech list, but apparently he is not in the House, nor is the hon member for Steinkopf. The hon member for Johannesburg North may proceed.

Mr Chairman, it is impossible to make a meal of a Bill that consists of one clause, but I simply want to say that it is a logical consequence that this amendment should be introduced to extend the scope of the original Act to allow for interest to be paid at the rate which is earned in the particular building society or banking institution.

With those few words the PFP will be supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, the hearty support of all the speakers leaves me very little to add. I simply wish to thank them all. The proposed legislation is a logical amendment to the Act; it is aimed at offering the landlord a wider choice in a way which will also benefit the tenant.

†However, I should like to come back briefly to the point raised by the hon member for Red Hill. As far as I know, since June 1988 there has been an arrangement to deal with problems under the Rent Control Act.

A little background might be useful at this juncture. Under the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, rent control is an own affair. On the establishment of the administrations for own affairs in 1984 the administration of the Rent Control Act in respect of the White population group was assigned to the Administration: House of Assembly. At that stage there was no apparent need to assign rent control to the Administration: House of Representatives and the Administration: House of Delegates. The administration of the Rent Control Act, insofar as it pertains to the Coloured and Asian population groups, thus at that stage still vested in the Minister of Community Development. It then appeared that exploitation was taking place in areas occupied by the Coloured and Indian communities.

The matter was discussed by the various hon Ministers, particularly at the request of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives and the hon member for Red Hill. An arrangement was then made to try to put this on a sound footing because of the relatively low frequency of complaints about rentals among these population groups. With the concurrence of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Assembly it was decided to man the rent boards with persons appointed to boards of that department.

The department agreed to administer the services on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for the benefit of the Coloured and the Indian communities. This arrangement was effective as well as economical since expenditure was limited. These boards met only when there were particular cases. Members of the Coloured and Indian communities could therefore lodge any complaint pertaining to rentals at the regional offices of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works of the Administration: House of Assembly.

The rent boards consisting of members of these population groups should examine in the prescribed manner every case of hardship that comes to their notice. Where the hon member for Red Hill referred to cases I presume that these cases will be brought to the attention of the various rent boards so that action can be taken to deal with these complaints.

*I think I have said enough. It is a fair amendment, it leaves a wider choice and it makes the administration of the Act far more reasonable and effective. I wish to thank all hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, the amendment of the Deeds Registries Act has become necessary because of other Acts that were amended in Parliament. I wish to refer to one or two changes that have been made so that the Bill now makes provision to expedite the transfer of property rights.

The transfer of a right of leasehold is effected by means of a deed of transfer when it deals with properties where leasehold right is granted in terms of the Black Communities Development Act, 1984.

When the State transfers property it is done by means of deeds of grant. Provision is now made for a right of leasehold also to be transferred by a deed of grant, which will save costs. This is welcomed.

The changes to the Matrimonial Property Act, 1984, also necessitated changes to the Deeds Registries Act. Clause 2 now provides for the situation where immovable property is registered in the name of both spouses married in community of property. This is necessary.

When a deed of transfer has been lost or destroyed a registrar of deeds may issue a new deed after following certain procedures, but there was no provision when a certificate of rights to minerals was lost. Therefore there is the need to make the same procedure available when such a certificate has been lost or destroyed.

There is also a need to enter into agreements with governments of self-governing territories with regard to the registration of deeds because of our Constitution.

These amendments are therefore necessary and we on this side of the House support this Amendment Bill.

Mr Chairman, as has been indicated this Bill deals with three main issues. The first is to save costs by enabling Black buyers of leasehold to take transfer of their property at a less expensive rate.

The second main issue is to allow the purchaser of property under mortgage to be substituted and take over the mortgage debt. Again this will result in a saving of costs. Lawyers and people in the legal profession involved in the registering of deeds will lose income and revenue as a result of this amendment but the public will gain. It will mean that they will have to pay less to their attorneys when they register property. The Law Society has indicated that they support the measure which means that they are putting the interests of the public ahead of their own professional interests. This is a laudable attitude on their part. I believe this attitude should be supported and they should be complimented on having adopted this attitude.

The third main issue deals with circumstances arising from the Matrimonial Property Act, 1984. This is in addition to some of the minor amendments which are technical and do not need to be discussed in any great detail.

We in the PFP support the Bill, mainly because it will save the public money. That is our main concern and we are pleased that it is coming about in this Bill. We therefore support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we in the House of Representatives support the Deeds Registries Amendment Bill. It is imperative that we adapt the laws of the country to the changing circumstances and also that amendments are brought about from time to time.

This Bill makes certain amendments to the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, in order to comply with current needs. I wish to pause at a single amendment.

This Bill now makes provision for the registration of transfer of right of leasehold. Where the State is the transferor such transfer may be effected by means of a deed of grant. This will naturally save the transferee costs.

The general statement which is being made is that our system of registration seems to be inexpensive for the State but, in comparison, expensive for the individual. Especially tax such as transfer duty and stamp duty contribute to the high costs for the individual.

It is true that deeds are sometimes bulky documents, of which the layman cannot make head or tail. In this respect I believe that matters could possibly be simplified. I want to ask the hon the Minister to consider certain proposals made by Prof G Pienaar regarding the change in format of the deeds documents in order to make them shorter and more understandable.

I want to conclude with a further request to the hon the Minister that he take a fresh look at the role and function of the conveyancer and the deeds office in the registration process. As far as possible, the overlapping of functions must be looked at.

I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I also wish to support the Bill because, as the hon member for Johannesburg North pointed out, it will save the public considerable costs.

I also support this legislation because it makes administrative provision for the development of South Africa. The underdeveloped sectors of our population have developed new needs, such as the possession of property.

This legislation facilitates the registration of proprietary rights or rights to property. One of the aspects for which this new legislation also makes provision, is the tediousness involved when a certificate of rights to minerals, for example, is lost. The Registrar of Deeds can, according to regulations, issue a new title deed or certificate of rights to minerals, as in the case of a lost title deed of property. We on this side of the House of Assembly are pleased to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I see we have an acting hon Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs at the moment. I too am just an acting spokesman for the House of Delegates this morning.

The Deeds Registries Amendment Bill is what one may call a technical Bill which provides for the Deeds Office to cater for changing circumstances. This Bill now makes provision, inter alia, in clause 1 for a right of leasehold to be transferred by deed of grant as well, which will save the transferee costs. This is most welcome.

This Bill also deals with a specific problem that was identified, where immovable property is registered in the names of both spouses, in the case of those who are married in community of property, and on divorce or by order of court has to be registered in undivided shares separately in the name of each spouse. Clause 2 now makes provision for this situation. All Registrars of Deeds, the Deeds Regulation Board and the Association of Building Societies of South Africa have been consulted on these amendments. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, due to the fact that it is not possible to vote against certain clauses in a Bill these days, it is not possible for us to support this measure as a whole. In clause 1 provision is made for the transfer of leasehold rights, inter alia by providing that transfer duty and stamp duty, which would normally be payable and which would accrue, will no longer be payable to the State. This, to us, is a case of reversed discrimination. It is a case in which immovable property is transferred outside the national states of certain population groups, and we are opposed to it in principle. For that reason we cannot support this legislation.

As regards the other clauses it is mainly clause 2, which regulates the matter of covering bonds in deceased estates, that I want to refer to. I am aware of the opinion that exists that should a substitution take place, as is envisaged in the following two clauses, the mortgagee, although he takes over a covering bond, would suddenly take over a fixed bond. With all respect, I think it is a wrong opinion. Upon substitution the conditions remain the same and only the name of the person changes. That opinion was expressed however, and this amendment to the Act will at least provide clarity or legal certainty in that regard. It is a fact that the Law Society requested that the insertion to be made at the end of section 45 (4) should be limited to section 45 cases, and not be made applicable to section 57 cases as well. Section 45 concerns the matter of the relationship between spouses, or of a deceased spouse, and section 57 regulates the position of the covering bond with regard to other persons. However, I think the mortgagor is still at liberty to say that he is not prepared to follow this procedure, but that he wants to enter into an agreement with the new mortgagee in which various other clauses can be included should he not be satisfied with the clause existing on its own.

We also support the matter of mineral rights in the case of lost transfer deeds and we also support clause 7, in which provision is made for negotiation with the national states. We are not opposed to it in principle, as we have said repeatedly, and we also welcome this clause.

Owing to the provisions of clause 1 and the exclusion of funds which would normally accrue to the State, and which have to be paid by other population groups in such circumstances, we cannot support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the previous speaker, much is the pity that the CP cannot reach the stage where they can start living with people in this country. We see this every time a CP speaker gets up and makes a speech.

*He never supports principles. One sometimes wonders what they really support.

†Getting back to the Bill, living today is a very expensive business and if a couple is fortunate enough to be the owners of fixed property and either of the spouses die or they get divorced, the procedures to follow in order to become the owner or half-owner could be very frustrating and costly. Clauses 2 and 4 of this Bill, like other previous measures, are designed to cut costs and minimise problems in respect of surviving spouses. Especially in the case of commercial property, people who are divorced can still control their half.

Building societies are reluctant to substitute bonds as presently described in section 45. Under the proposed amendments, the whole procedure will be streamlined and thereby costs will be cut.

Clause 5 allows the registrar to build up a new transfer, if title deeds to mining and mineral rights have been lost or destroyed, and follows the same procedures as described in sections 38(2), (3), (4) and (5) of the principal Act, thereby streamlining the procedures to title of mining or mineral rights.

Clause 6 defines a right of leasehold as immovable property, allowing a more permanent tenure, especially in the case of Blacks, through property registration.

A recent request was made by the constitutional development service that legislation be adapted to provide for entering into agreements with self-governing territories. This clause amends the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, to make provision with regard to the rendering of assistance with the registration of deeds because of the low frequency of activity in the self-governing states. South Africa will then be able to register actuaries outside the boundaries and also provide training, until there are enough qualified people for them to open their own deeds offices.

I believe South Africa has an excellent deeds registration system, probably instituted since the days of Jan van Riebeeck, and as more and more South Africans become property owners, especially with the Labour Party of South Africa’s constitutional proposals for a non-racial geographic federation, I believe this Act will have to be amended from time to time to make provisions for the changing circumstances. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank all hon members who fully supported this Bill.

I would like to start with the hon member for Red Hill. He specially referred particularly to clause 1, which I think is the most important clause in this Bill, and therefore I would like to elaborate a little on this clause. Certificates of leasehold are normally registered in the name of the leaseholder personally. Such leaseholds shall, in terms of section 16A of the Deeds Registries Act, Act 47 of 1937, be transferred by the leaseholder to another person by means of a deed of transfer in the same way as the transfer of land. In some cases, however, a leasehold is registered in the name of an employer, for example the State in terms of the housing scheme for employees of the South African Transport Services, and as soon an employee has paid off his debt, the employer transfers the leasehold to the employee by means of a deed of transfer as prescribed. The proposed amendment provides that where the State is the transferor, transfer of a leasehold may be passed by means of a deed of grant in the same way as the transfer of land.

The cost attached to the registration of the deed of grant is much lower than the fees charged by a conveyancer for the drafting of a deed of transfer.

I would also like to thank the hon members for Johannesburg North, Suurbraak, Caledon, Umzinto and Retreat.

*The hon member for Bethal said that they were unable to support this as a result of the accommodation it contained as regards fees payable. I want to refer in particular to the hon member for Caledon’s comment. He said that this was a prerequisite for development in South Africa. The hon member is quite right. I want to place special emphasis on the point that provision is made for the acquisition of property by lower-income groups and underprivileged groups in South Africa. It is the very point of departure of the Government not only to give people a joint say in South Africa but also to give them joint responsibility. If one wants to give them joint responsibility, one can do it in one of the most significant ways and that is by giving them the right to land tenure which makes them joint owners of South Africa. On this basis it is the point of departure to give these people responsibility in that way so that as landowners they can also be jointly responsible for the economy of South Africa and its defence.

This is the reason why I thank the hon members who supported the measure and also want to refer to the last point raised by the hon member for Bethal about attorneys who said that they felt that the amendment of section 57 would result in reduced income. I want to make the point that they were not opposed to the principle. I want to thank all hon members who took part and supported the measure.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure when it comes to dealing with problems of fauna and flora in South Africa because we have a great history and pride in our country for the protection of our fauna and flora and therefore, in the joint committee, when this matter was discussed, there was unanimity that penalties and provisions must be instituted to protect this very beautiful country of ours. Certain actions of late had necessitated the hon the Minister’s department to propose amendments to the Bill. One of them was in connection with the seven-week fem called Rumohra adiantiforme. The theft of these leaves has increased alarmingly and the State has lost thousands of rand in income. Penalties have lost the value of an effective deterrent. There is no deterrent as far as the penalties are concerned. The Bill provides for a separate offence as well as considerably increased penalties on conviction. We hope that might be able to resolve some of the problems.

Furthermore, the Act provides for a fine against any person who cuts, damages, destroys, collects, takes or removes any forest produce in any State or private forest in the country. The penalty has now been increased to try and reduce the destruction or the theft of these particular varieties of forest produce. The penalty of two years imprisonment has now been decreased to one year. It was felt that that was a bit harsh.

As a result of the dividing up of the country it has now become necessary to involve KwaZulu. There, too, we have a large number of issues that have to be resolved. One of them is that we have to enter into agreements with KwaZulu regarding the reservation of certain stands of pines for the purposes of seed production. It is very necessary to protect them.

The proposed amendment is also in accordance with a recent request by Constitutional Development Service that legislation be adapted to provide for entering into agreements with self-governing territories. Because they are our neighbours, because of the concern for the fauna and flora in this country and particularly because of the issue of the reservation of stands of pines for the purposes of seed production it will be necessary to enter into such agreements.

I asked at the joint committee whether it would not be possible rather to have a principal Bill which took care of the question of having agreements between territories than to amend every piece of legislation. I was advised by the chairman that the law advisers are looking into that particular issue which will overall take care of the problems that we are experiencing in entering into agreements.

We feel that this amending Bill will reduce the problems that we are experiencing and therefore we support it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Red Hill elucidated the details of the legislation very nicely. I do not want to add anything to what he said, except that we in South Africa have a wide range of unique species of fauna and flora. The pressure on our total environmental system is increasing both internationally and internally.

†In future we will again be prompted to bring in legislation to help us to preserve the unique fauna and flora that we have.

*If the costs of the unique plant and animal types in South Africa increase world-wide as a result of their shortage, it is a normal and natural phenomenon that the incidence of smuggling, theft and other anomalies will increase. We have many other examples of the tremendous financial advantage that emanates from unique types of seafoods, for example perlemoen and crayfish, of which the hon the Minister is aware.

In my opinion this is a good measure. Personally I believe that we could have afforded to make the fines even higher and the prison sentences even longer, because the uniqueness of the seven-week fern virtually makes it a national asset. We should like to support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, in supporting this Bill we as nature lovers and conservationists abhor the wanton exploitation and destruction of flora and fauna that are presently taking place in our country. Unfortunately conservationists throughout the world are hard-pressed to protect the fast diminishing plant, animal and fish reserves from being exploited because of man’s greed.

It is an offence to collect or remove any forest produce in any State or private forest. In the Forest Act of 1984 such produce is scheduled and this Bill provides for the species known as the seven-week fern to be included in the Forest Act as protected flora. This species has also been declared protected flora in terms of the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance, No 19 of 1974, of the Cape of Good Hope.

The seven-week fern is unique in that it is found only in South Africa and mainly in the indigenous forests of places in the Southern Cape, like Knysna, George and the Wilderness. The leaves of the fem are commercially marketed under permit, especially for the overseas market where they enjoy a high value and help to bring much needed foreign currency into the RSA.

Indications are that the State is losing large amounts of money because of the theft of seven-week fern leaves in the State forests. As the penalties under the Forest Act are of such a lenient nature in comparison to the high prices obtained by unscrupulous dealers it has therefore been decided to increase the penalties imposed on those found guilty of this offence, to be commensurate with the value obtained from the unauthorised selling and stealing of seven-week fern leaves.

Whilst the proposed penalties seem stiff they fall in line with fines and sentences latterly enacted. It seems that too many dishonest people are getting away with dishonest gain and we as legislators, although we could never stop this type of offence, must make the penalties stiff enough to make them a fearsome deterrent to those people who selfishly exploit that which belongs to our country and its people.

Mention has already been made of the agreements that we are entering into with self-governing countries and with that we on this side support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I must say that it is very pleasant indeed to be speaking on a Bill where there is an absolutely unanimous viewpoint being expressed right through the House. I think that in our Parliament we are becoming more and more aware of the need to conserve our heritage in South Africa. It interests me in a sense—I am somewhat cynical about this—that we are upping penalties for the seven-week fern specifically because the State is losing money. When the State is losing money and the Department of Forestry is losing money then one has got to do something about it.

At this stage we are not introducing the same deterrent for the other things that need protection. I would like to talk about things like cycads; some cycads do occur in forestry land. I would like to see a similar penalty put on the Statute Book for the theft of cycads. There is a considerable illegal traffic taking place in cycads at the present time. But, in this case the State is losing money and there is a good economic reason for making the deterrent as high as we possibly can.

Certainly this Bill has the approval of my party and I am very glad to see that it has the approval of everybody else. I would just like to ask the hon the Minister to give consideration to the upping of penalties for other products, not only forest products. I am speaking to the hon the Minister while he is wearing his cap as the Minister of Environment Affairs. There are other unique plants in South Africa for which I would like to see similar penalties brought about to deter people from stealing those as well.

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly would like to support the Forest Amendment Bill. However, I would be neglecting my duty if I did not comment briefly on a very important aspect of the original Bill and this amending Bill, namely the conservation aspect. The management and the utilisation of our timber resources form a very small part of the Act itself. The protection of our indigenous trees and mountain catchment areas, the conservation of our priceless fauna and flora which are to be found in those areas and the regulations whereby the public will be granted access to our largest forest areas, are all elements which were incorporated in the original Bill, and deserve the highest praise. As is the case with water, South Africa is not richly endowed with indigenous plants and trees for afforestation. For that reason what we have must be protected at all times.

However, as is the case in our towns and cities, vandalism and theft have increased alarmingly. The leaves of the seven-week fern have also not escaped the attention of thieves. There are indications that the State is losing thousands of rand in income as a result of thefts from the State forests. The high marketing value of the leaves, especially on overseas markets, apparently has the result that penalties which may be imposed in terms of the Forest Act, 1984, in respect of the unauthorised cutting and damaging, etc of trees, have lost the value of an effective deterrent. In order to counter theft, penalties for the theft of the seven-week fern as well as for other contraventions of the Act, are being considerably increased. We thank the officials for the work which they are doing with regard to the tracking down of thieves and criminals. Of course, because of the vastness of the areas this is not always possible.

I am of the opinion that our schools could play an important role in conservation in that children could be taught right from the start to ensure that indigenous plants and trees are not removed or damaged. I am also of the opinion that the Press has an important role to play. The serious penalties which can be imposed in terms of this legislation, must be brought to the attention of the public. The CP would like to support this Bill, since that it forms a very important link in the progress of our country.

Mr Chairman, funnily enough, acts of conservation have been necessitated by the greed of man. I want to take hon members a few centuries back in history. When the settlers first settled in the Cape Province, there was an abundance of yellow-wood. Today, because of man’s greed and self-centred interest, that abundance in the availability of yellow-wood is now extinct.

What humans seem to forget is that the natural resources of a country—the land, the environment, the fauna and the flora—are gifts of God which we enjoy and hold in trust for posterity. Because of this it has become necessary to enact a law such as the one we are discussing before the House.

What I am not happy about is the object of this Bill. It is only when the State loses money that the Government deems it fit to enact laws. However, when they do not lose money, they are not interested. It is only when the danger signals start facing them that they start enacting. I therefore wish to ask the hon the Minister in all humility to consider conservation of other fauna and flora which could be endangered within the foreseeable future. It is no good taking the necessary steps only when the danger is there.

In the vernacular which I speak, the Tamil language, there is a saying which, if translated into English would read something like this: Dam the river before the floods. When there is a flood, it tremendously complicates the task of damming that wall. I therefore have no qualms in supporting this Bill. However, the point I wish to make is that we have to take the necessary steps well in advance and not only when the State loses money. We must think of the preservation of this natural gift of God for posterity.

With regard to the seven-week fern, I would like the hon the Minister to tell us what steps, if any, have been taken to propagate this in its natural state, other than allowing people to reap under permit. Even if people have permits, there will come a day when the natural propagation may be affected. After all, man’s greed will not end. A man who has a permit will not necessarily leave a certain amount behind or refrain from cutting back. What control is exercised over those people who get permits to go and pick this fern? This is another concern which I would like the hon the Minister to answer.

I would like to say that the penalties envisaged seem to be sufficient to deter the criminals who are perpetrating this crime against nature. If that is not sufficient then I will advocate a total closure, total prohibition for a number of years, just as the hon the Minister’s department had a prohibition on fishing on the Natal coast. Certain types of fish were not caught at all, as a result of which they multiplied.

If these deterrent measures prove to be insufficient and do not have the effect which is envisaged, then I will ask the hon the Minister to consider a total prohibition for a number of years—at least three years whereby the natural propagation process will be able take its own course.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank all the hon members who supported the Bill.

We started off with the hon member for Red Hill. He asked for a mechanism to conclude agreements with the various self-governing states. It is strange that such a mechanism does exist with the independent states but not with the self-governing states. We are looking at that and in this Bill is an interim measure to make it possible to enter an agreement with KwaZulu.

The hon member for Retreat and the hon member for Camperdown referred to “man’s greed”. It is a fact that God provided for man’s needs but not for his greeds.

*It is unfortunately the case that people become greedy, and often want more than they are entitled to.

†The hon member for Bryanston referred to the fact that the Government is now acting because it is losing money and the hon member for Camperdown also referred to that. Yes, to a certain extent the Government is losing money but not very much. If one takes the total amount involved here, the Government revenue from Rumohra fems is almost negligible.

*We are also worried, not only about the money, but also about the fact that the forests are being destroyed by these thieves, and that a very lucrative market which exists for tenderers overseas, could be completely ruined by illegal ferns. This is one of the reasons why we asked that this legislation be amended in order to provide for higher fines. Last year I launched an investigation into the whole fem industry, and I received a very comprehensive and substantial report on the fern industry. After this report had been properly studied, I received recommendations from my department with regard to inter alia the granting of concessions by means of tenders. All the financial aspects were looked at as well. I think that we now have a far more efficiently structured system whereby these fern tenders can be granted. If I am not mistaken, we are going to use a system whereby we grant these contracts for three years, without the option of an extension. Every three years the people involved must submit a further tender. We are going to grant the tenders to those tenderers who have shown in the past, or who are able to show, that they also take the resources into account, that they adhere strictly to the regulations, that they do not over-exploit the resources, and so on.

I think therefore that we have the matter under reasonable control. The hon member for Standerton—I thank him for supporting the legislation—touched on the aspect of conservation education. I should have liked to mention in the debate on the motion yesterday—unfortunately my time expired—that we intend to table a White Paper on environment education within days— not weeks, but days. This is a policy document in which the Government’s standpoints on environmental education are clearly set out. I also think that it is a document that will be thoroughly read by everyone who is interested in conservation in South Africa.

†Mr Chairman, with these few words I wish to conclude my speech. I thank hon members once again for their support.

Debate concluded.

The Committee rose at 11h01.

Mr Chairman, I think we are breaking virgin soil today and I do welcome the new way in which we are dealing with legislation.

*The diggings at Alexander Bay were proclaimed a State Digging on 8 March 1928. The primary object was to direct the activities towards community development and community support in that part of the country.

At present the affairs of the State Alluvial Diggings are administered by a non-statutory advisory board in terms of section 53 of the Precious Stones Act. The board consists of officials of the Departments of Mineral and Energy Affairs, of Finance and of the Treasury, employees of the diggings and three private persons. The latter are Namaqualanders, Messrs Stone and Louw and Rev Appies.

Under the existing legislation the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology may make arrangements and appoint a person whom he deems necessary for the effective administration and exploitation of the diggings. He also determines the remuneration and the conditions of service of all employees who are appointed.

The revenue obtained from the production of diamonds by the State Alluvial Diggings accrue to the State. All expenses are borne by the State and Parliament votes money for this purpose. However, the diggings are operated by means an operating account under section 11 (a) of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1985. Consequently all moneys received from the sale of diamonds are paid into the operating account and all expenses are defrayed with money from this account. Any credit balance which may exist at the end of the financial year is to the credit of the State Revenue Fund.

The State Alluvial Diggings are self-sufficient as regards the funding of expenses and over the years an annual profit of approximately 5% of the total revenue has been made from the sale of diamonds.

Approximately a year ago we decided that these profits would no longer be paid over to the Treasury but that they would be employed for projects which would be to the benefit of the community and the environment. For example we have just agreed to the laying of a pipeline from Alexander Bay almost as far as Port Nolloth in order to supply the area with fresh water.

†Over a period of sixty years the State Alluvial Diggings have provided employment opportunities to people living in the surrounding areas.

It has also made a very significant contribution towards the health care of people in those areas. A programme for relief of distress was initiated some years ago. Employees whose families live elsewhere are also allowed to buy farm produce at very low prices when going home once or twice per month. These measures have already proved to be very beneficial especially to children living in the surrounding areas.

The Government has, however, decided that the feasibility of more direct involvement by the State Alluvial Diggings in the total sphere of the economic and socio-economic development of Alexander Bay and the surrounding area should be investigated. After thorough investigation by a task group appointed for this purpose and on the advice for the Advisory Board for the State Alluvial Diggings, the Government decided that its economic and socio-economic goals for the area could best be reached by the establishment of a more autonomous statutory body. It was consequently decided to introduce legislation for the establishment of a body corporate which, although totally owned by the State, would have the necessary elasticity to operate successfully on a more diversified basis within the private sector environment.

*I think I must just add here that the Government has decided in principle that the State Diggings of Alexander Bay will not be privatised.

The Bill now under discussion makes provision for the establishment of the Alexander Bay Development Corporation—clause 2 (1). As soon as the corporation has been established the assets, liabilities, rights and obligations of the State in the State Alluvial Diggings will be transferred to the corporation. All shares in the corporation will be taken up by the State in exchange for the assets and will not be transferable without an Act of Parliament, as specified in clause 17 (2).

The main objective of the Bill is to employ the economic benefits produced by the diggings for the economic development of Alexander Bay and the surrounding area, and to the best advantage of the employees of the diggings and the inhabitants of Alexander Bay and the surrounding area through the development and the promotion of mining, agriculture, trade, industrial settlement and town development, as well as any other economic and socio-economic development in that area. To achieve its object the corporation may primarily establish and carry on any mining, agricultural, industrial and any other business undertakings, or cause them to be established and carried on.

Order! I have to point out to hon members who may not be accustomed to convening in this Chamber that this is a much smaller chamber than the one that they may be accustomed to and therefore conversation must be confined to an absolute minimum here. If hon members have to converse, they must definitely lower their voices.

It seems to me I shall simply have to raise my voice.

Secondly, the corporation will establish and assist in establishing companies for mining, agricultural, industrial or business purposes, and also initiate, manage and promote community and town development. Furthermore, it will provide capital or other means, technical or other assistance, expert and specialised advice, information and guidance on a business basis.

†The affairs of the corporation will be managed and controlled by a board of directors and they will be appointed by reason of their ability or their experience of the diamond trade, agriculture, regional development, administration, financial administration or their conversance with and experience of the inhabitants of the surrounding areas.

The board will meet on an irregular basis and will be assisted by committees and by an executive officer and the personnel complement.

*As has already been mentioned, the corporation will be empowered to establish and assist in establishing companies. The share capital of such companies shall be divided into A-shares—which shall be not less than 50% of the authorised share capital—and B-shares. A-shares shall be taken up by the board, on behalf of the corporation, in exchange for those assets transferred to the company or against the payment of the money or other compensation determined by the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. The A-shares shall vest in the corporation and shall provide the corporation with the controlling shares. These shares will be controlled by the company and may, subject to certain conditions, be issued to any person.

Important aspects of this corporation, particularly for the inhabitants in the area, include the provision of approximately 1 900 persons with employment; the infrastructure makes provision for residential dwellings, offices as well as sports facilities. Furthermore there are facilities such as police stations, post offices, churches, weather stations, an airport and power supply, all of which developed as a result of the mining activities. Farm products are at present being made available to employees at very low prices, and health services, hospital facilities and dental clinics are being provided in the Richtersveld. Apprentices and operators are being provided with training. Provision is being made for relief of distress. There are soup kitchens and milk, bread and eggs are provided.

†Should the corporation be established, and apart from the aforementioned, there will be the following further advantages to the inhabitants of Alexander Bay and the surrounding area. Firstly, town development will take place. People will be able to buy their own houses. More businesses than at the present stage will in all probability be established. The corporation will be able to establish businesses, and individuals will be able to take out shares in companies; it will be possible to do much more in respect of community development.

It will become possible to provide capital and technical assistance and to render expert and specialised advice. It is anticipated that especially the small entrepreneur will benefit.

*Mr Chairman, as hon members will note, a few amendments are being proposed. The reason for deleting the words “close corporations” in the Bill, is that we have established that a juristic person in terms of section 29 of the Close Corporations Act may not be a member of a close corporation. The few other amendments were proposed by the Auditor-General in order to bring the legislation into line with present day auditing practices.

I gladly support these proposed amendments since they are essential. The Joint Committee will, as usual, support them in a very competent way and I want to thank the committee sincerely for the important work they have done in this connection.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make my contribution to the Bill under discussion which has, since 1928, been one of the most important pieces of legislation pertaining to the people of the Richtersveld. Firstly one must fully appreciate the circumstances of the inhabitants of this area and be aware of the shortcomings in the industrial and commercial spheres, as well as the economic and socio-economic conditions which could give rise to urban development.

For a while I am going to place myself in the position of the inhabitants of this area by welcoming the objectives of this legislation. Later in my argument, however, I am going to make so bold as to dwell further on the shortcomings in this area.

In clause 3(a) reference is made, and I quote:

This, I think, should be clarified.

Is this going to mean that areas such as Port Nolloth, as the most effective town and the town most favourably situated for mining and industrial settlement, is the most ideal for further development, or is attention going to be given to places such as Lekkersing, or is that too remote for the necessary development? I can appreciate the position of the inhabitants of Lekkersing, because theirs is a very remote area. The hon the Minister knows that in 1986 our study group undertook a tour to that area, and the position there is rather precarious.

In clause 4(c) of this legislation reference is made to the initiation of community and urban development. When we discuss this we must remember, specifically we on the LP side, that we find ourselves in the position in which we have to establish a new South Africa in which no coloured group will be treated better than any other group, and in which the colour of one’s skin will not be a factor, but one’s dignity as a human being and as a South African. That will have to be our criterion.

That is why it has to be spelt out more clearly what group or what area the corporation wishes to develop there. Will this area be freed from the cocoon in which most of South Africa is trapped today and which constricts us into not discussing matters further with one another. What I am referring to is the group areas cocoon.

When we talk about urban development we must talk about a town that has been freed from all these constrictions. We shall have to guarantee the security of all races and ensure that they derive benefit from the overall mineral wealth of South Africa, but within which they will also have to make their contributions to the further development or establishment of such a corporation. We must not simply leave it in the hands of White South Africans to administer the monopoly, but every race will have to make a contribution to this corporation.

The history of Alexander Bay is a bitter pill to swallow lightly. Bad blood still flows between the Coloureds of that part of the world and the State Alluvial Diggings, because the Coloureds were relocated to make place for the poor Whites. That is why we will have to create opportunities and ensure that the general public is given an opportunity to acquire membership of this corporation. We shall have to ensure that the dangerous ideals of Prof Boshoff are not made feasible here.

I am obliged and committed to carry out the resolution of my caucus here to refer this legislation back to the committee for further amendments which will be introduced during the course of this committee meeting. The corporative control structure will have to consist of all races.

Mr Chairman, at the outset may I express publicly what I have already done privately, namely my congratulations to the hon member for Uitenhage on his appointment as chairman of the Joint Committee on Trade and Industry. I also want to express the hope that his period of chairmanship will be fruitful, not only for himself but particularly for South Africa, for the short period he will hold it before the next general election. I want to assure him of the support of the CP in all measures which are in the interests of South Africa.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance recently tried to disinform the South African public regarding the CP’s attitude to privatisation. He did so by referring to a recent statement of mine on television on one of those rare occasions that we in the CP are given time, in this instance some 60 seconds. What I said was that the CP agreed to the principle of privatisation with certain qualifications, inter alia that the privatisation must be beneficial to the taxpayer, that essential services must not be privatised and that the proceeds are not used to pay off debts incurred through inefficient government to finance pie-in-the-sky or unproductive projects so regularly supported by the Government.

Privatisation and deregulation are not new concepts. Some of my colleagues who have, like myself, served on local government bodies will confirm that we were successfully privatising and deregulating services more than 15 years ago. However, as far as deregulation, too, is concerned, we in the CP will not allow an erosion of our First World standards as is presently being allowed by the Government.

This project before us is an example of the type of privatisation that we can support. The idea is basically to prolong the life of the community of Alexander Bay and that of the surrounding areas dependent upon it. We express the sincere wish that the objectives contained in this Bill will be achieved.

We have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, reading the aims and objectives contained in the Alexander Bay Development Corporation Bill one gets the impression that while we are privatising, strict control is at the same time being kept over the activities of that corporation which is giving opportunities for a community to develop themselves into a vibrant entity. That is what we are looking at.

However, I am not qualified to say too much about the area. I have not visited the place, but I do believe that the House of Representatives have a problem. After discussing it with the chairman of the component of the House of Delegates we are also in agreement that the Bill be referred back to the joint committee where full discussions will take place.

Mr Chairman, as chairman of the joint committee I was somewhat surprised at the Labour Party caucus having adopted a different resolution. I want to deviate slightly from what I wanted to say.

I am also familiar with that part of the world, and I want to tell hon members today that we, as politicians, must really not throw away the baby with the bath-water. The time has now come for us to examine what is in the interests of the people of the Richtersveld, and perhaps to a lesser extent what is in our interests as politicians.

Those people are interested in having a roof over their heads, in viability, in what we, as politicians, can do for them to bring dignity to the Richtersveld. I venture to say that I do not believe that those people are interested in us as politicians, nor in whether there is a group area in Hillbrow or Johannesburg or whether this can be abolished. They are simple, lovable people who live in close proximity to the soil. Do hon members know what they are interested in? What they are looking for is a roof over their heads.

They are seeking the economic wherewithal to enable them to live with dignity too. This Bill before us also enables them to live with human dignity in the future.

We must be careful, however, that we do not see colour in everything or try to introduce colour into everything. Let me tell hon members that we cannot incorporate the question of colour into this Bill, and I sincerely hope we are not going to do so. My committee members know what my views are, but I want to go further and say that the time has come for us to forget the past for once. I say this with all my heart and soul, and I am not being funny when I say that. Let us forget about the past and look to the future in this country. I do not want us to withdraw continually. The hon the Deputy Minister is shaking his head. If we were to continue to cling to what happened to us in the concentration camps during the Anglo-Boer War, it would be a terribly day indeed.

I really do want to appeal to all hon members today—I am not excluding anyone—and my plea is that we examine the question of a multiracial South Africa in which everyone in South Africa can live with human dignity. Let us discuss those matters that bother us with one another, but in the process let us not deprive those who have been left behind, lovable people who live in close proximity to the soil, of opportunities because we, as politicians, still want to cross swords in this Chamber.

If one looks at what the diggings have already done in the Richtersveld, at Lekkersing, Eksteensfontein, Koeboes and Sanddrif—those are far-away places—one sees the services and clinics that the company has already provided as far afield as Port Nolloth. We now want to propose with this Bill they be given an opportunity to provide further services, establish infrastructure and help these people. Hon members must know that only 13 of those working at the State Alluvial Diggings are public servants. The others are what I would like to qualify as being “private individuals”. With this Bill these individuals can now be incorporated in a completely new dispensation.

I really think there are thousands of people who are dependent upon these State Alluvial Diggings. The time has come for us to stop endangering the future of those people for political reasons. As someone who has the social and economic welfare of those people at heart, my plea today is not to do any damage to that, so that we can give those people an opportunity to make progress. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on the face of it this Bill seems to be aimed at a positive development, namely preserving the Alexander Bay area for a future ordinary municipal existence. This case was made before the joint committee and seemed to find general acceptance. In principle we of the PFP supported the measure.

However, in view of some of the reservations which have been expressed this morning, it does seem appropriate to us rather to refer this Bill back to the joint committee and see whether we cannot resolve some of the problems there which have been aired this morning. We will therefore act accordingly.

Order! May I just point out that there are proposed amendments to the Bill and it will therefore be referred back to the joint committee.

Mr Chairman, the Alexander Bay Development Corporation Bill before us, is no doubt a Bill which directs itself towards a programme of development in the main stream of the economic growth of this country. It is no doubt in keeping with what hon members all want to do. However, I do not want to take up much of hon members’ time. We have had some suggestions and representations in this regard and I am happy also to associate myself with this, because the intention that we must get together in order to make certain improvements which I think the House of Representatives has brought forward, is good.

In supporting their call that this Bill be referred back to the joint committee in order to make the necessary improvements from which we can all benefit, I want to support the plea that this Bill be referred to the joint committee for further amendment.

Mr Chairman, the relevant Bill has been exceptionally well drafted to give effect to the objects contained in the memorandum. The truth is that the joint committee’s report embodied a qualification, the result of which is that investigation ought to be instituted into the whole question of delegation in cases where delegated powers are being granted to a body directly involved in a specific matter.

I merely want to make a few remarks about the whole question of delegation. In practice certain powers are, at times, transferred from one organisation to another, or delegated by one organisation to another, owing to practical exigencies and as a result of a need to apportion work for the purposes of more rapid and efficient operation. It is true that there are various forms of delegation, and a few guidelines in this connection are laid down in relevant literature. I do not think it is necessary to go into those guidelines. I should therefore like to confine my further remarks to the Bill under discussion.

In the Bill under discussion no clear provision is apparently being made for control by the Minister—hence this qualification. From clause 28, which deals with the delegation of powers, functions and duties, it is apparent that no express provision is being made for the Minister’s direct control over the functions of the corporation or the board. One could regard this as a shortcoming. It is not a shortcoming, however, and this criticism should therefore be seen in the light of the fact that provision is, in effect, made in the memorandum for the establishment of a corporate managerial structure to undertake the aforesaid development within the private sector environment. This corporation is, in fact, a step in the direction of privatisation, and the truth is that the corporation is no longer under the direct control of the Minister.

In clause 21, however, provision is also made for the annual submission of financial statements to the Minister, the result being that specific powers are entrusted to him. In clause 22 provision is also made for statements of account and annual financial statements being audited annually by the Auditor-General. In clause 24 provision is made for an annual report to be submitted to the Minister within six months after the end of the financial year of the corporation.

In these circumstances it is a pleasure for me to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, let me begin by saying that history is the most formidable and implacable disciplinarian or judge. The mills of history grind slowly but finely. The structure of history rests on two main foundation stones, ie cause and effect. Today I want hon members to take a backward glance at this for a moment. At the end of the debate we shall probably have learned more about this and have got somewhere.

For some time now there has been a need to get Alexander Bay into the picture. I reiterate this, however, with mixed feelings, and I have serious reservations when I think that Alexander Bay has already been earmarked for Prof Carel Boshoff s “Boerestaat”.

I want to come back to this Bill. Let us examine, for a moment, statistics on Alexander Bay. The hon the Minister has given us virtually all the statistics, but I shall repeat some of them.

Alexander Bay is far off in Namaqualand. Only my colleague, the hon the Minister and I really know where it is situated. I sometimes doubt whether those who drafted this Bill have ever been there. Initially mining operations on the State Alluvial Diggings in Alexander Bay commenced in 1928. Revenue was collected chiefly thanks to diamonds, and this went to the Treasury from which expenses were defrayed. The amount was approximately R3 million to R6 million per year.

Alexander Bay has a total work force of 1 962 people. Fifteen of them are public servants, 487 White workers and 60 apprentices. Unfortunately I cannot say how many of the apprentices are people of colour, but perhaps the hon the Minister could give us some help with that at a later stage. There are 460 Coloured workers and 940 Black workers. These workers, the Coloured people and the Black people, all live in single quarters, according to information received from the mine management. Alexander Bay has a total population of 3 400. There are 380 houses, a police station, a primary school with 230 pupils, a recreation club and a 60-bed hospital.

Now I am back where I started, speaking about history. Alexander Bay has all the above-mentioned facilities and infrastructure, and we have been mining diamonds there for the past 60 years now. Now, after 60 years on the diggings, one sometimes grows concerned about how long one can still make a living from the diamond diggings in Alexander Bay, and about what will then happen to the workers. According to the most recent geological surveys the subterranean riches—as I have heard—are virtually exhausted.

This is precisely where this Bill comes in, the object being to ensure the future of Alexander Bay and all its people—which is a good thing—by establishing a corporation with the object of undertaking mining, agriculture, commerce, industrial settlement, town development and any other economic and socio-economic development in the State Alluvial Diggings at Alexander Bay and certain areas and surrounding areas.

This sounds like a simple process, but it is very important, in fact vital, to take a look, first of all, at all these facets. It all sounds fine, in fact a wonderful idea, to retain Alexander Bay as a viable entity after these subterranean riches have been exhausted, but let us take a closer look and analyse the situation for a moment.

Clause 3 of the Bill reads as follows:

Town development, amongst other things, must therefore also be promoted. I have no argument about the desirability and practicability of doing this, or the principle underlying it, but the results of this could pose serious problems.

Clause 5(1) concerns the board of directors and reads as follows:

Here I find the legislation a little vague. About the following matters I should like a few explanations from the hon the Minister. As far as clause 3(a) is concerned, one day, when town development takes place, is it going to take place on a group basis? At present there is one school, recreation hall, hospital, etc. Is this envisaged town development, if application is going to be made for such development, going to be in an open area in order to eliminate friction between workers? I should also like to know from the hon the Minister whether, if the prospective corporation is to be established, the workers would be guaranteed their jobs if the mining industry were to be scaled down slightly—which is logical—or is there going to be a large-scale dismissal of workers?

In conclusion I should like to refer to clause 5(2) which deals with the board of directors and reads as follows:

If people of colour were to meet the above requirements, would the hon the Minister also be taking them into consideration when it came to people serving on the board of directors?

I conclude with mixed feelings and therefore cannot, at this stage, before amendments are introduced, support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, allow me, right at the outset, to thank the hon members for Rust Ter Vaal, Southern Natal, Stilfontein, Constantia, Mariannhill, Bloemfontein North, Springbok as well as Mr C J Derby-Lewis sincerely for the contribution they made to this legislation. Thank you very much for the support which was given in specific cases. I also want to say thank you very much to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis—the only member who offered full support. I also want to express my thanks for the many positive contributions that were made. The hon member for Springbok saved me a great deal of time, because to a large extent he said the things that I wanted to say now.

Allow me to express my disappointment at certain insinuations that were made here. It is a fact—the hon member for Springbok also referred to this—that diamonds will not be there forever. The hon member is quite correct. That is why we began to consider what we would have to do to ensure that economic activities would at least continue to exist in that community when diamonds were no longer there. That was primarily what gave rise to this legislation. [Interjections.] The primary objective is to ensure that we develop the area in such a way that activities will continue to exist.

To reply to the hon members for Rust Ter Vaal and Springbok, the primary objective of this legislation is in the first place to confine itself within the activities of the State Alluvial Diggings. This does not mean that this will only happen at Alexander Bay. The activities there consist of mining, because that is its primary activity. In the mining process it also developed an industrial capacity, because it developed the most successful sea-going vessels for the recovery of diamonds that exist at present in South Africa.

We see a potential for this being expanded, but under the present circumstances this cannot be done unless a corporation is established. We see that agricultural activities must be expanded, but what are we doing? We are producing food and I would make so bold as to say that the agricultural potential in that area is the finest in the whole North-Western Cape area, as a result of the abundance of water and as a result of the ability to produce food for human and animal consumption by means of pig and dairy farming.

What was the other limitation there? Because it was purely a State enterprise we were for many years not able to market the overproduction of vegetables and fruit, for we would then have been competing with the private sector. The result was that beautiful vegetables and fruit were fed to the pigs and the chickens. Surely we cannot continue to do that. Surely we must make certain that what we produce is made available for the local community. That is our second objective with this Bill.

I hope I will in this way be able to furnish the hon members for Springbok and Rust Ter Vaal with an answer in regard to the possibility of our spreading our wings further. Hon members will recall that we paid a visit to Lekkersing, where we took cognisance of the economic problems of the silica-ore developer. Alexander Bay tried to get some of these people off the ground by supporting them, but we did not have the right to do so, because it was not within the means of the State to do so. We were confined to digging diamonds. Consequently this Bill now provides that if support has to be given one day to, for example, developing the activities at Lekkersing further, we now have the means to plough back the profits derived from the area.

It is important to remember that it was a State establishment and we were therefore obliged to channel all the profits made by the enterprise over the years to the Exchequer. We now think that this must not happen because the purpose of the enterprise is to plough back the profits made there into the area, and this includes the activities in the surrounding areas.

I do not want to express an opinion on Port Nolloth because if development must take place there, it will happen. However, this must take place after a proper investigation. This is a great disappointment for me, too, for the simple reason that, when I took over the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs years ago, Alexander Bay was controlled exclusively by the State. I said at the time that this could not continue and I therefore demonstrated out of the history of the past, as the hon member for Springbok said, that my motives in involving the people of that area at Alexander Bay in this corporation are honest. It was with the support of the department that we established a board to which Dr Appies was appointed. He was appointed at the recommendation of the Ministers’ Council of those hon members, because we felt that the people of the community should all be involved in the administration of this enterprise.

I have no doubt in my mind when I give this undertaking today, because we have already demonstrated this by making a start without anyone having asked for it. Without anyone having asked for it, we have already begun to involve the people of the community, and I therefore have no doubt in my mind about this.

Why have we not said that there should be a specific number of board members? The fact is that we want freedom of movement in order to appoint the people who could become involved in that area to that board, on the recommendation of the people from the community itself. I have the support of my department and probably the committee for Coloureds serving on the board when this board is established because these are people from the community. They are primarily the people of the community, and I have no doubt about that.

That is why I am really disappointed to see that there is an attitude of mistrust in my objectives. It is a great disappointment to me, because I think history proved that I wanted to do exactly the opposite for that area and that I wanted to ensure the future of that area for all inhabitants.

Let us consider town development. Can the hon members tell me how many Coloured homes there are in Alexander Bay for Coloured families? The hon member for Springbok said that he and I and another hon member were the only ones who knew anything about Alexander Bay. How many Coloured homes for Coloured families are there in Alexander Bay? Not a single one! [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon member for Springbok want to ask a question? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may proceed.

Not a single one! When I realised this, I said it was just not good enough. Why could we not build houses for Coloured families there so that they did not need to go back at frequent intervals and every weekend to their homes in Lekkersing or wherever else their homes were? Why did we not build houses there? My instructions have already been given, but we have problems with this because the community of Alexander Bay is controlled exclusively by the management of Alexander Bay. That is why we asked why we could not grant the corporation the right to establish towns so that people who wanted to buy houses there could do so. If a person retires one day, what must he do then? He has worked for 40 years in Alexander Bay and now, when he retires, he must pack his things and leave. We say that is not good enough. If that person wishes to stay there, he must have the right to buy a house so that he can retire and live where he has lived all his life.

We included town development in this measure so that we could grant that right. I am being asked what form that town development is going to take. Exactly the same as today, only it is going to be formalised so that the houses can be sold and houses can be built for Coloured families to stay there with their entire family. I have no doubt about that. I have already given the instruction to the present board to establish facilities there for the building of decent houses of equal standards for Coloured families.

The statement has been made that the White ousted the Coloureds from Alexander Bay. I honestly do not know on what grounds such a statement is made. It is another great disappointment for me. I think the hon member for Springbok gave the numbers, namely 487 Whites and 460 Coloureds. It was not the Whites who ousted the Coloureds; it was the Blacks. It was the 940 Blacks who ousted the Coloureds there. I was greatly perturbed to hear of this ratio. My officials are sitting here and they know it. I said it must stop happening. There are more than enough Coloured people to do the work in Alexander Bay. Why must we bring Black people thousands of kilometres to go and work there, while we have many people there who want to work?

Khayelitsha!

Instructions have already been given for the Black content of that labour structure to change in favour of Coloured people. It is already happening. Unfortunately I do not have the figures now, but I think this has already had a very positive result. Once we start building houses for people there with the town development potential that ratio will improve dramatically. I have no doubt about that. As far as apprentices are concerned there are already 10 registered Coloured apprentices who are being trained at Alexander Bay together with all other apprentices.

I think I have replied to most of the questions. I have no objection to the Bill being recommitted. To tell the truth, it has already been suggested that the Bill be recommitted because certain amendments already appear on the Order Paper.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis supported the Bill. I thank him very much.

The hon member for South Natal spoke about privatisation.

†It is not on the cards. I have stated very clearly that it is not our intention to privatise Alexander Bay. What did we do exactly? We divided the shareholding into two components—A shares which will be held by the Government and B shares which can be bought by people in the private sector.

*There is no restriction on who may buy them. If people from our Coloured community wish to buy shares, there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Nothing under the sun! Really, I want to repeat that I am disappointed about the insinuations that we have ulterior motives with this piece of legislation in respect of the Coloured community of that part of the world.

I associate myself very strongly with the representations of the hon member for Stilfontein that we should really stop trying to score points off one another if we wanted to work in the interests of the future of this country. If we try to score points, for example, by agreeing with one another one day and then differing the next without consultation—no one came to me or to the chairman of the committee to say that they suddenly had a problem—on legislation such as this Bill which is in the interests of everyone in South Africa, we are heading for a problem.

†I want to thank the hon member for Constantia for his support. I agree with him. It will be referred back to the joint committee.

I want to thank the hon member for Mariannhill too.

*I thank the hon member for Bloemfontein North for his contribution.

The hon member for Springbok discussed town development and the guarantee of work. I do not think there is any way in which I can tell him today that I can guarantee work for those people if one is no longer able to mine diamonds at Alexander Bay. However, the hon member himself made the point that the purpose of this corporation is in fact to make sure that people do not lose their work once the diamonds have been mined out, but that they will continue to be used in other activities that have developed there in the meantime. Hon members must make no mistake—the diamonds on the land are virtually gone. We are now extracting diamonds from the sea, but if we do so we will need people of a different kind. We shall need people such as skippers and divers. Then one does not need land workers.

There are representatives of my department sitting in this Chamber today. The chairman of the present board, Mr Van Aardt, is here today. I really want to plead with hon members to accept our bona fides. If hon members have any real, essential problems, the representatives of the department are the very first people who will be prepared to listen to them. I think our history at Alexander Bay has demonstrated this. We initiated Alexander Bay and this Bill is its culmination. I really want to plead with hon members to support us so that we can work for the future of that area and its people.

For example we have considered supplying electricity to Lekkersing on the account of Alexander Bay, but we were not able to do so because we did not have the right to do so. If this piece of legislation is passed, we will have the right to supply Lekkersing with electricity.

With the prospect of the rights that we are going to receive under this Bill we have already decided to lay a pipeline which will convey fresh water from the Orange River down to Port Nolloth. It is expected that that pipeline will have been completed in September.

I really plead with hon members today to accept our bona fides. However, they must not, after they have accepted our bona fides, keep their real, substantiated problems from us. Then they must come to us with those problems, because we shall look into them with the greatest responsibility possible.

Debate concluded.

Bill recommitted.

Mr Chairman, I do not think I should make a speech.

Hear, hear!

I thought that I made such good speeches that the hon member for Overvaal would rather say: That is a pity, go ahead. [Interjections.]

I just want to say that the object of this legislation is very simple, namely to ensure that whenever property for retired persons in a housing scheme is alienated and the retired person dies, no problems will arise. Under the present legislation problems do, in fact, arise.

In terms of what is now being proposed, the wife of the retired person or his children or family will be able to purchase his property on condition that it is occupied by a retired person. It may be occupied by someone else with the permission of the residents of that housing scheme.

Those are primarily the objects of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is the CP’s standpoint that this Bill should be supported.

This is a measure by means of which an attempt is being made to curtail and to eliminate certain forms of exploitation of the consumer, and in this instance of the retired person in particular, in the field of housing.

In recent times we have seen a mushrooming of retirement villages for senior citizens and housing schemes for the aged, and since certain deficiencies in the existing legislation have now come to light, it is essential that these amendments be effected. These amendments will not only improve the law as such, but will also ensure that our aged, their interests and their investments are protected. We must not only make it easier for them to obtain housing, but also ensure that their investments are safe.

The object of this legislation may be briefly summarised as follows. Through the amendment of the definition concerned, it is made clear that a housing development scheme may only be established where a housing interest is offered for alienation solely or chiefly to retired persons.

Secondly, there is a provision to the effect that land which is subject to a housing interest may only be occupied by a retired person or by the spouse of a retired person. Section 10 of the Act is being repealed, since the Association of Building Societies of South Africa has indicated that due to the existence of section 10, building societies would not be inclined to advance any money for housing development schemes.

It is a pleasure for me to lend the CP’s support to this legislation.

Mr Chairman, this Bill seeks to amend the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Act. It seeks to provide that land subject to a housing interest may be occupied only by a retired person or the spouse of a retired person; and also to repeal section 10 of the Act.

I should like to quote from the memorandum for the information of this committee regarding clause 2:

Then we have in regard to clause 3:

We find that it is a very good Bill for retired persons and therefore I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, a great deal has already been said about this legislation. I have looked around the country to see whether such housing is also available for our Coloured people and I see that there is none. The idea of supporting such legislation began to rankle me, but after the sittings of the joint committee I looked through the measure and scrutinised it. I then saw that in the future, in the long-term, there was also something good in it for me. There is definitely something good in it for me. There is something built into this legislation which will also benefit our people in the future.

The retired person and his spouse may occupy this land or house, but not without the permission of the people living around them. This has been built in, and it is a good thing. We have already discovered that sometimes, when children inherit a place and begin to move into it, they push people around, carrying on indiscriminately and uproot people. That is why it is a good thing that a provision has been built into this legislation to the effect that those other people first have to grant their permission. Those people who then contravene the Act, will pay a fine of R1 000.

We wish to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Heidedal. We have an association that stretches back virtually over a lifetime, and I am also grateful that he supports this Bill.

Clause 1 (a) of the amending Bill deals with possession. It makes it possible for someone who is not a retired person also to obtain an interest in such a scheme. Many people in professions, such as ministers, magistrates and policemen, now have an opportunity to invest their money in this scheme over a period of a lifetime, long before they retire, so that there will be no problem for them when the day arrives for them to retire. This amending Bill makes this possible for them, something which the original Act, Act 65 of 1988, did not do. We are very grateful for this.

It also makes it possible for a child, for example, to make housing which he may possibly have purchased for himself or as an investment, available to his parents. This will naturally also result in a great deal more capital and money flowing into this scheme than the principal Act permitted.

As is the case in any matter, there is one particular aspect which I should like to highlight in this regard, too, namely clause 2 which deals with occupation. There is a very lovely song about the old goat and the young girl, and the proposed amendment provides that—hon members know that in the times in which we are living today there are fewer men than women—if the old goat who has made use of such a scheme can no longer keep up, the young girl will be taken care of. I am very grateful for this amendment.

A further point which I wish to make, relates to section 10 of the principal Act, which is to be repealed. The amendment is being made at the request of the building societies and I believe that the repeal of this provision will satisfy them and that it will solve their problems. I am pleased to support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, my party has thoroughly scrutinised the Bill under discussion and deemed it fit to support this measure in order to protect our retired persons.

Mr Chairman, although the Bill is a short one, it touches on a subject that lies very close to the heart of every hon member of this House, viz the housing of the aged people of our country. This is a common problem of varying intensity, whether we live in an urban or a rural area, whether we represent new or old townships.

As a result of this problem, the housing development schemes in the form of retirement villages started to be established, and last year Parliament decided to introduce and to adopt the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Bill. This year we are amending the Act and I think it is correct because it was an experimental Bill, and whenever problems arise, the Act should be amended from time to time.

There is no doubt that two provisions in the Act had the effect of discouraging people from investing in housing for the aged. One of these provisions, section 10, made it almost impossible to get housing loans from building societies. Because of the restriction on the ownership, a further provision discouraged children and other people from assisting their parents or grandparents from acquiring accommodation, and that restrictive provision has been removed. To the extent that these restrictive provisions will encourage the individual to put his life savings—or the money from the family home that he sold—into housing for the aged, we support this Bill.

However, we do this against the background of a very real problem that exists in this country. We only support this because it might ameliorate that problem. Senior citizens, wherever they may live, are finding it more and more difficult to find housing at prices they can afford. This is a serious problem.

*It does not matter whether people are living in urban or rural areas, it still remains a problem.

†I believe to the extent that we are dealing with this problem, we are warding off a potential crisis in South Africa. The housing of aged people has the prospect of becoming a crisis. Wherever we live, we know of older people who cannot find affordable housing today. A number of factors are squeezing old people out of housing accommodation. Allow me to mention a few of them.

The elderly and the aged in our country are increasing both in number and as a proportion of our total population. That increase is likely to continue as citizens live longer and as the birth rate in the cities starts to drop. The numbers are increasing.

In the built-up areas such as Sea Point, one gets smart flats along the seafront, but behind them are tens of thousands of people living in very modest apartments, boarding houses and rent-controlled houses. The reality is that the number of housing units of this type is declining. Rent control having been lifted over older apartments squeezes people out of that type of accommodation. The conversion of rented accommodation into sectional title ownership squeezes older people out of rented accommodation. The advent of holiday and time-sharing schemes also removes that accommodation from the availability of old people.

The second point is that rentals are being pushed up. The fact that there a fewer flats means that the increase in demand is pushing up the rentals. The continuous rise in building costs averaging from 14% to 20% every year is making it more and more difficult for people to afford new housing. Added to that, finance charges and rising interest rates on bonds and loans put ordinary housing beyond the reach of the older people of South Africa. So we have this strange phenomenon that the number of senior citizens is increasing while the number of housing units in the cities is decreasing and the rental for what is available and what is left is rising every day.

When one adds to those things the fact that inflation is destroying the buying power of the very limited incomes of older people in South Africa, I want to say that unless we curb inflation more and more older people in South Africa will find themselves without a roof over their heads.

We support this measure as a very small contribution toward the overall problem of housing the aged. However, I must say to the hon the Minister that he must get hold of his colleagues and others. The Government has a responsibility but likewise the community has a responsibility. I suggest that the Government and the community are going to have to put their heads together. It will be on our consciences if we go into a future where tens if not hundreds of thousands of older people in our country have to live their closing lives in a state of insecurity and having the hardship of not knowing whether they are going to have a roof over their head that night.

We support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, to have this item on the Order Paper is a breakthrough that is welcomed by all concerned.

Housing for the aged or living with struggling sometimes troublesome children, is a sore point with the older generation. The obvious solution is retirement schemes. Therefore the envisaged project is much appreciated.

There are naturally retired couples or persons who are healthy and strong and who would prefer to be on their own and do for themselves. They would happily be accommodated in a small flatlet. There are those who are almost inseparably attached to some families or grandchildren and who may desire a separate entrance room. Such families can also be put up in a separate block just to be nearby providing they shoulder the extra costs, strictly temporarily, of course.

There are the old and frail who will have to be placed in a communal set-up or in a permanent or semi-sick bay as long as our people are in a position of care. It is hardly conceivable that there will still be old people who want to own a property whilst they are permanently cared for and in a happy environment.

It is very important that they should also be assisted with the drawing up of wills etc. There are old people who are in possession of age old burial society contracts, virtually worthless in the modern day context. Their savings or part pension can augment such necessities, so that their family and friends need not be affronted by a thoroughly inferior burial.

This brings us to a most interesting point, namely such institutions starting their own coffin-making facilities etc. This is a worthwhile proposition. Each complex is to have central communal halls for TV viewing or time spent together. These complexes need not be endlessly spread out; even minor blocks will do.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to congratulate the hon member for Uitenhage on his appointment as chairman of our group’s activities. I look forward to co-operating with him. I think matters have gone extremely well during the short time since we got going.

†I think from the discussions here it is quite clear that the care of the aged of the country is a matter that lies close to the heart of each and every one in this committee. I fear no contradiction when I make this statement. In doing so, I want to thank the hon member for Sea Point for putting that point so clearly. We completely support him in that.

I think he referred to certain aspects such as rent control and time-sharing. I fully agree with him. Those are contributory factors which make accommodation for the aged more and more difficult. I hope I understand him correctly, namely that he is not appealing for the reintroduction of rent control and the stopping of time-sharing. I think what he really appealed for—and I would like to support him in that—is that the Government, the private sector and the community should join hands to try to solve this problem. It is a joint responsibility and I would like to support him fully in that respect.

We share his concern as far as the rise in building costs is concerned. I have already instructed the Harmful Business Practices Committee to investigate the very high rises in the prices of certain building materials because I do not think this is acceptable. It makes the prices of houses unaffordable for the biggest part of the community.

*I want to thank the hon members for Losberg, Central Rand, Heidedal and Heideveld—this hon member made a very good speech—Ladybrand, Sea Point and Strandfontein for supporting this measure.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, the Bill which is due to be discussed serves to replace the Liquor Act of 1977 and was compiled on instruction of my predecessor. A revision of the Act was not only necessary, but the result thereof also had to be embodied in a newly drafted measure.

However, I must emphasise that the Bill is not merely a revamped carbon copy of the existing Act. The Bill nevertheless remains true to the fundamental rationale of all previous liquor legislation, namely to exercise control over the distribution of liquor in the public interest. On the other hand, when compiling the Bill, attention was paid to the need to promote entrepreneurship within the framework of the free operation of the market mechanism and to do away with unnecessary regulatory measures.

The major innovation contained in the Bill is no doubt the fundamental amendment to the licensing system. A less complicated and completely streamlined licensing procedure is now to be introduced. Under the new dispensation for which provision is made in the Bill, any applicant will be able to apply for any licence at any time. Clause 184 of the Bill enables the competent authority to more readily condone defects in applications. Thus another stumbling block in the way of freer entry to the liquor trade is removed.

A factor which will also be of importance in future is the fact that the Liquor Board will be in a position to obtain first-hand information on matters peculiar to a given locality. The reason for this is that clause 7 of the Bill provides for the appointment of members of the board on a regional and decentralised basis.

*A number of other matters in the Bill are aimed at granting licence holders greater freedom of trade. Some of these matters include the following. Clause 86 provides that clients may taste liquor before purchases are made at a liquor store. The provision of liquor free of charge in a tasting room should result in a new, sophisticated approach in the retail trade.

The hours during which liquor may be sold for off-consumption on weekdays will extend from 08h00 to 18h00. In meritorious cases individual retailers may, with the concurrence of the local authority, apply to sell liquor until 20h00 on weekdays.

Licensed restaurateurs, who are limited to selling certain kinds of liquor, will benefit from the greater flexibility that has been built into the Bill. It is being made possible for those who upgrade their premises to be granted the increased status of selling all kinds of liquor without their having to apply anew for a liquor licence.

Greater flexibility is also being sought in providing for the reduction in the wide variety of licences and authorisations, as well as for the conversion of such licences and authorisations into licences with a similar content.

The purpose of rationalisation is to enable the entrepreneur to conduct the business of his own choice. All the new things I have referred to so far are specifically aimed at promoting the interests of the entrepreneur, as well as the consumer public, within the framework of the broad public interest.

Order! The noise level in the Chamber has again risen to an unacceptable level. The hon the Minister may continue with his speech.

Deregulation is promoted by scaling down where possible the entry procedure and the restrictions applicable to those in the liquor trade to the minimum. The basis of this approach resides in the acknowledgement that the entrepreneur is in a position of trust. Should he fail to fulfil his obligations or to perform satisfactorily, control measures would have to be implemented. After all, the main objective remains the orderly distribution of liquor. In order to do justice to this, a quid pro quo for the lenient approach had to be built into the Bill to effect a balance between the broad public interest and the freedom of the private entrepreneur. This was done in clause 128 of the Bill. That clause makes it possible to prohibit the sale of liquor pending an investigation by the Liquor Board if it should appear that such sale is giving rise to undesirable conditions which could necessitate steps against the offending licence holder. In my opinion the important aspect in this regard is that we must protect the “honest broker” against those who are abusing their privileges and creating public problems. I think that is of cardinal importance. We did not really have the ability to do that in the past; that was why there were such malpractices in one and two-star hotels in particular, as well as in the case of smugglers. [Interjections.] I must emphasise that the watering down or removal of the control elements can cause serious social problems which would be to the detriment of the country.

I must also point out that there is a disquieting trend in certain sectors of the restaurant and hotel industry, viz that certain licence holders are using their premises mainly for entertainment aimed at teenagers. Liquor is supplied to teenagers into the early hours of the morning, and this has undesirable consequences. I have personal experience of that, because I took the trouble of investigating this myself with the hon the hon the Minister of Law and Order. I wish that every hon member in this Committee could be taken on such a tour. It would make them support this legislation without any reservation. We shall have to clamp down on those malpractices. In terms of the Bill, restaurants may sell liquor only if a meal is served. This tolls the knell for the bartype enterprise that is at issue here. I have decided in principle not to grant any liquor licences to discotheques. These have been summarily refused during the past year.

I think it is also necessary to refer to the position of the sorghum beer industry. In 1982 the Competition Board reported on an investigation into restrictive practices in the provision and distribution of liquor in the Republic. In its report the board expressed the opinion inter alia that from the point of view of competitive policy, there was no justification for the retention of the former administration boards’ statutory monopoly with reference to the manufacture of sorghum beer. Not long afterwards an investigation was made in order to find a suitable administrative home for the sorghum beer industry. The Government decided to transfer the control over sorghum beer to the Department of Trade and Industry as soon as the relevant sales points had been privatised in correspondence with Government policy. The Bill provides for the control over the sale of sorghum beer by means of the same—take note, the same—licensing system which applies in respect of all other liquor. The holders of existing authorisations for the sale of sorghum beer are being given an opportunity to become part of this system—a step which rationalises the sale and distribution of all liquor.

It would be impractical to deal with the provisions of the Bill clause by clause. I can assure hon members that the Bill was drawn up carefully, after considerable consultation and extensive discussions had taken place between officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and the relevant interested parties over a very, very long period of months and months.

If this measure becomes law, as I fully expect it to, there are numerous matters on the administrative level that will have to receive attention. What is most important is the formulation of new regulations to accommodate the amended licensing procedures. I trust that it will be possible to finalise this matter this year and that, once it has been included on the Statute Book, the legislation will be of enduring value to the country as a whole.

Mr Chairman, right at the beginning of this discussion I should put on record that in keeping with the long-standing tradition of the PFP this matter is one of a free vote for the hon members of the PFP. [Interjections.] On liquor matters this is a long-standing tradition.

Speaking for myself, I wish to inform hon members that I shall be supporting this measure. It is generally an improvement on the present situation. It represents a redrafting which now collates all the various pieces of legislation in a more logical way. It is easier to work with the Bill as it is now before us. I believe it has been well drafted, that it facilitates access to licences and that it makes some contribution to the general trend towards deregulation.

However, this is an opportunity to air some matters relevant to the operating of the Liquor Act and to the operating of this new Bill. I do so after consultations with persons who are active in the industry and know the problems which arise.

Clause 85 now provides for closing times to be varied from 18h00 to 20h00 by area. This is, on the one hand, a positive development. It allows for flexibility and for the authorities to take into account the sensitivity of certain localities, say in suburban areas, as opposed to others in nonsuburban areas.

However it begs the whole question of notice. The hon the Minister mentioned that the big task after this Bill has become law is to set about the drafting of regulations. In drafting those regulations I wish to make a very earnest plea that the following points are borne in mind.

Firstly, we should not depart from the notice being given in a central reference, such as the Gazette, as it will not be satisfactory to give notices only in local newspapers which may or may not be read in the relevant area. That is not to say that local newspapers should not also have the opportunity to place such a notice; in fact I think it will be helpful if we combine the two. [Interjections.] Local notice is important because the public do not always read the Gazette, but there must be a central reference which is provided by the Gazette.

That, however, should be coupled with notices to people in the surrounding areas, such as the ratepayers’ association, or even to residents directly affected. One could also adopt a procedure which I believe is used in Natal whereby such notice should also be given on the premises. If this is done and people have the opportunity to know what is happening in their immediate environs we shall overcome some of the very serious problems which have arisen in the past in relation to the application of the Liquor Act when licences have been granted in sensitive suburban environments.

I wish to say something concerning clause 128. It is correct as the hon the Minister says that on the one hand the Bill facilitates the easier granting of licences, but on the other hand will stiffen the penalties and place a bigger stick in the hands of the administrators of the new Act. This is a very fierce provision. Let us be under no illusions about that. What is being provided for in clause 128 is for the Minister to close a business summarily. I am only aware of one other instance where the Minister may summarily close a business and that relates to newspapers, and we know how controversial that is.

It is not a power to be used lightly. I would make an very earnest appeal to the hon the Minister not to do so. This clause was slightly improved in the joint committee. It now provides that a hearing must be held within 60 days of a notice being served to close down the business. It provides for the audi alteram partem rule to apply where the proprietor may submit a replying affidavit. However, it does not place a time limit on the decision being handed down from the hearing. One could therefore have a business closed down for a considerable length of time if the decision is not handed down timeously. This can obviously be totally fatal to a business over a peak period.

There is also no provision for cross-examination. If one has a trigger-happy person on the Liquor Board or one of the inspectorates they could submit a stiff affidavit for the Minister’s attention and without the opportunity to cross-examine the submitter of that affidavit I think it could create very serious problems. I would therefore like to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister not to use these powers except in extremis. If the board is doing its work properly and if the Act is being applied properly no situation should not be allowed to develop to the point where this power is necessary.

In regard to the question of the composition of the Liquor Board, the hon the Minister mentioned in his opening speech that we are now to have area representatives. I would like to raise a point. This is a new provision. Clause 9 of the Bill enables the chairman of the board to co-opt members for the consideration of a particular matter—section 7(1)(c). The question of cooption is a power that continues. The power to co-opt people from a given area for a special purpose is applied at the moment. In the past co-optees have been persons of colour. However, according to my information to date no persons of colour have ever been appointed to full membership of the Liquor Board. I would like to make an appeal here that with these new area representatives—I believe that the Western Cape will receive two local appointees—at least one should be a person from the Coloured community.

In regard to the question of meetings of the board there are certain changes made to the present provisions and I would hope that the Liquor Board does not degenerate from area meetings to holding only Pretoria meetings. This is not the present practice. I believe that the practice is to hold one meeting in each province annually but is no longer a requirement in terms of the new provisions.

I think the idea of the board coming to the people is important. If there are going to be objections raised about a particular licence application, the kinds of bodies which often like to make submissions—church bodies, private individuals etc— do not have the ability to take themselves to Pretoria and I believe that regular meetings in the main centres are absolutely necessary. I hope that the hon the Minister will include that consideration in the drafting of regulations.

Another question which has some bearing on the question of licences for discotheques starts with the question of the understaffing of the board. My information—I regret that I do not have absolutely up to date information—is that the Liquor Board is understaffed. They have difficulty holding the staff they have. In some areas there are three people doing the work of six and this aggravates an existing difficult situation. Bearing in mind that the Liquor Board interfaces directly between the Government and the private sector and given the fact that it has a sound record and is a respected body for its efficiency, it cannot be expected to function at peak efficiency if it is hopelessly understaffed.

That brings me to the question of inspectorates and the issue of controls. We have a somewhat bizarre situation with the discotheques, which the hon the Minister referred to and which is a good example. The hon the Minister does not want to license discotheques. He has explained that he has been on a tour of some of these premises and we have also seen newspaper pictures and reports about the abuse taking place there and young children getting drunk out of their minds with alcohol and drugs. Obviously one would not wish to see such abuse continue. One would like to prevent such abuses taking place in our society. However, does the refusal to grant licences to such establishments help to improve the situation? This is where I beg to differ with the hon the Minister. At the moment we have a rather bizarre situation where premises that are licensed are in fact inspected and monitored by the police. A certain amount of control is maintained, but at premises that are unlicensed people are free to go their own way and unless there is a criminal complaint the police do not come anywhere near such places. Therefore, in the interests of control, there is in fact an advantage to licensing premises where alcohol may be consumed.

An unlicensed disco, for example, is an invitation to wine or whisky drinkers to take whole bottles of liquor hidden under their coats onto the premises, where these bottles are then completely consumed. On licensed premises matters are different because the proprietor is in a position to supply tots or glasses and to cut off that supply if abuse is taking place. He has to control the premises in the interests of his business and I think that the hon the Minister should very seriously reconsider his present blanket ban on licences for discotheques. It is not that I do not share his intentions, but I do believe the mechanism is not the right way to go about it. Let us licence such premises if they meet the test acquired. Let us give the proprietors the opportunity to show that they can monitor the situation. If they do not, then let the axe fall.

The question of the inspectorate and keeping control over these premises begs the question of the extension of pressure on the police. It is a fact that while the Liquor Board may be understaffed, the police also have staff problems and they also have other priorities and a great deal of work to do. They cannot always give the necessary attention to the control of antisocial behaviour. I would like to ask the hon the Minister to give attention to using sections 137 and 138 in regard to the appointment of inspectors. At the moment this work is handled entirely by the police and in some cases it is an unfair load on senior officers to have to monitor the application of the Liquor Act. One could appoint inspectors who may be retired people—retired police officers for that matter—who have the time to attend to the inspecting of licensed premises. I believe in this way a step forward will be made in the interests of improved control.

Finally, I would like to touch on the policy of vertical integration in the liquor industry. I will give more attention to this in the debate on the actual Vote, but I would like to ask the hon the Minister why it is that an artificial limit is placed on free enterprise in the liquor industry by these seemingly arbitrary restrictions upon the number of outlets which various companies may hold. With those comments I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, when there was talk in 1988 of amending the Liquor Act of 1977 and extending the hours during which liquor may be sold, there were objections from all quarters. The objections came from the Whites in particular. The people said that if we gave liquor stores or restaurants more time in which to sell liquor, more people would be layabouts.

There are shebeens in our Coloured and Black residential areas. They are open 24 hours per day. If we could extend the hours of liquor sales in the liquor stores and licensed restaurants without their still having to apply to the local authorities and these applications having to be referred to the Minister, we would have been able to combat this iniquity.

The present Liquor Act of 1977 is a mere consolidation of 35 Acts which have been passed since 1928. Despite all the changes that have been made since 1977, the Act could no longer comply with present-day requirements and the Act had to be revised.

In revising this Act, we bore a number of principles in mind. One of these was that the Liquor Act should be made more accessible to a person applying for a licence. Free enterprise should be encouraged within the framework of the Liquor Act, but in that regard we can immediately question one point. Clause 22 of the Liquor Bill states that the chairman of the Liquor Board is given the authority to deal with certain matters without referring them to the board. This means that the chairman can approve or refuse an application.

We have a problem with this point. Hon members know it is looking for trouble to place the power in one person’s hands. Just for the record I want to make it clear that we initially supported this amending Bill in the joint committee, but these points were brought to our attention after we had supported the Bill.

Which clause is it?

It is clause 22. We have a problem with this clause. The Liquor Board is respected by everyone in the country, and we are not saying that the chairman will abuse his powers, but we feel that this clause grants the relevant chairman too much power.

We have a second problem which concerns the sale of sorghum beer. We have no objection to the fact that the people who sell sorghum beer have to apply for a licence in future. My problem, however, is that a few years ago the Government privatised the market for sorghum beer completely. Those people who had to buy the beer halls from the Government for thousands of rands at the time are now being faced by the fact that if this Bill is passed, they will have to apply for a licence within one year.

I am not talking about the cafes and shops where they sell it, but exclusively about the beer halls. They now have to apply in the normal way, and then the application is advertised. The church or the community can object to the application. What happens then? The Liquor Board can refuse the application and the person who has applied will then lose all his money. The beer halls in the Black residential areas were not bought only by Coloureds and Blacks, but also by Whites. Clause 98 therefore implies a risk for everyone.

We have another problem, just like the hon member who spoke before me, with the composition of the Liquor Board. At present section 7 provides that two persons in the employ of the State will be appointed to the Liquor Board. Naturally these are the chairman and the deputy chairman. Then one person from the ranks of the SA Police, nominated by the Commissioner of Police, is appointed. We merely want the hon the Minister’s assurance that at least the other two people will be from our community—the Coloured community, the Black community or the Indian community. It is unfair for the Liquor Board to have represented only the White community all these years. We very definitely have a problem with that. [Interjections.]

I am also very pleased to hear that the hon the Minister is no longer going to grant licences to the discotheques. People do not apply for a discothêque licence when they apply for a liquor licence, however. They apply for a restaurant licence with dancing facilities. Hon members know that that is a problem, especially in our community. A whole number of people have this kind of licence. In addition strict control is not exercised over these places.

What is the hon the Minister going to do about restaurant licences, however, now that licences will no longer be granted to discotheques? These restaurant owners do not sell food. One can go there, but one will never get any food. The only food one can get there is a packet of crisps from the bar counter. That is what is meant by “restaurant” in our areas. [Interjections.]

Will the hon the Minister please investigate this matter for us? When objections were raised and the Press speculated widely that this legislation would make liquor licences accessible to the public, people from the White community sent letters to the joint committee in which they requested that no discotheques or restaurants be permitted in their areas.

With reference to our areas the Liquor Board grants licences which lead to disruption. There is only one shop in a particular area, for example. The shop owner determines that he can no longer do business by selling groceries. He converts his shop into a restaurant with a dance-floor and applies for a licence. This happens in the middle of a residential area! We do not have many residential areas that we can be proud of. Keep the few that we have clear of this kind of licence.

After mentioning these points, I want to request that the Bill be referred back to the joint committee.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to thank the hon the Minister for his friendly words to me. I wish to say that he is one of the Ministers whose door is always open to members. We appreciate that very much and will certainly make use of it.

I want to thank the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis for his friendly words to me. I sincerely hope that this committee will develop into a very close and critical parliamentary joint committee. I shall do my best to contribute to that, because this committee normally deals with very important legislation.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis has quite a sense of humour if he thinks the CP has any chance in Uitenhage. We in Uitenhage were fortunate enough to escape a Boksburg type of catastrophe by the skin of our teeth, specifically because we had focused attention during the municipal election on the consequences the CP’s economic policy holds for multinational and other companies. One of the CP members who unfortunately is a council member in Uitenhage today, went so far as to say that he would not be too concerned if one of the multinational companies, in that case Volkswagen, should leave Uitenhage. In fact, he said he would wave them goodbye! That was the member’s standpoint, and that was what gave rise to our pulverising the CP. I also want to tell the hon member that after the coming election we shall send them home empty-handed once again. [Interjections.]

I did not have the privilege of listening to or going through the considerable number of representations received and dealt with by the joint committee. Naturally I was also unable to attend the committee’s consultations or discussions. From the hon the Minister’s speech I conclude that this Bill has been receiving attention since as early as 1985. All interested parties had ample opportunity, and made use of the opportunity, to make their inputs, to react to the legislation and to make proposals. According to paragraph 5 of the explanatory memorandum, almost all organisations had an opportunity in this regard; many of them made use of it and thorough cognisance was taken of all the representations addressed to the committee.

I can talk only as a lawyer who has had to deal with this legislation and its implementation in practice now and again over the years. Just before I was called upon to speak, I received a note from an hon member who shall remain nameless, which read as follows:

Those of us who are in practice all know that there were tension-filled renewal applications, but that fortunately there was a subsequent change which allowed this to take place automatically. If I understand it correctly, this legislation now provides that if there is any mistake, one simply pays a surcharge without any further problems. Consequently the legislation is being streamlined and I should like to tell that hon colleague that there is far less tension nowadays.

Few Acts have been implemented with as much formalism and inflexibility as this particular Act. It had many side effects and had an impeding and frustrating effect on those involved. The Bill under discussion is the result of good and protracted consultation and attempts to acknowledge the present requirements of greater flexibility and freedom and far less formalism in the orderly regulation of the distribution of liquor in the public interest.

The hon the Minister has just said that within the framework of the free operation of the market mechanism, he has tried to promote entrepreneurship and to remove the necessary regulatory measures as far as possible. This standpoint has wide support, because from the point of view of the entrepreneur who is entering the market for the first time, the new dispensation is a considerable improvement.

An applicant need no longer wait for a one-off application every year. He can approach the Liquor Board to hear his application at any time. This is an immensely important consideration economically. There is no accumulation of applications at the end of the year either, when applications have to be submitted and a large number of applications then have to be heard at great expense and discomfort, after which the applications have to wait for a decision for months, something that used to have enormous financial implications.

I think clause 184 should be read with this procedure. It is the condonation clause which indicates that condonation can take place if this is not likely to prejudice anyone and if in general it complies with the provisions of the legislation. I think this is the most drastic change and also the greatest improvement in the Bill, because we are finally drawing a line through the absurdity we experienced with the implementation of the Act previously, when a typing error or even abbreviations were regarded as fatal defects in an application.

I should like to tell Mr Vorster, the chairman of the National Liquor Board—he is here at the moment—that in his term he tried to handle the situation with the least possible formalism, but that he will now have an Act which will enable him to give effect to these desires much more easily.

The hon the Minister and the hon member for Constantia referred to the importance of drawing up regulations and to the part that will play. It will also play a decisive part in projecting the spirit of the Act in the regulations. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Constantia who requested that the sittings take place in the various centres. I think it is very important that matters be decided where the interested parties find themselves.

I do not want to hammer on a negative note at all, but this Bill is in the spirit of deregulation and so on. Then I want to ask the hon the Minister to consider clause 83 in which there is still an impediment or an aggravating restriction on the alienation of liquor store licences. I know that the Bill has now reduced it from five to three years, but anyone who wants to sell still has to get permission. This is related to vertical integration and that kind of thing, but still it is a measure from the past. If we intend to consider this legislation once again, as we shall have to in an industry that is constantly changing and manifesting new facets, we shall have to consider this aspect too.

The objections of the hon member for Nuweveld are concerned basically with clause 7(1)(c), if I understood him correctly. I must tell him that I regard this clause as an enormous improvement, because regional representatives can now serve on the National Liquor Board. There are only three fixed members, viz the chairman, the deputy chairman and the police official. The other members are appointed in their regions. It is also important to consider … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we are dealing with a very delicate matter when working with this Bill. Licensing goes way back, originating many years ago. In the Transvaal it dates back to 15 June 1852; in the Orange Free State, 1856; in the Cape of Good Hope, 1853; in Natal, 1847. After all these years we have now come to witness a Liquor Bill such as this one. The Bill before us is undoubtedly one that represents a step forward for progressiveness. Here we have a positive outlook on the subject to which the members and chairman of the Liquor Board, Mr Vorster, and his department have devoted three years of study. I want to congratulate him and his team on bringing forward this Bill.

It is possible for an application for a liquor license to be made throughout the year. This means applicants no longer have to wait for their application to be considered when the board sits once a year.

In the second place it will no longer be necessary for legal representatives to take up these matters on behalf of clients. A person is at liberty to forward applications directly to the board. This means that the cost that is normally attached to such an application, is effectively reduced.

The Bill with only these two aspects highlighted has been drafted with the affirmation and implementation of these principles in mind. However, as with any other Bill there is always room for further improvement. After having examined its entire content, we realised that there a is definite need for further analysis.

One example is the racist aspect in regard to the officialdom of the Liquor Board. When are members of all race groups going to be represented on this board? We have proposed legislation to this effect since our inception into Parliament and it is high time for such an amendment to be legislated and implemented.

I am of the opinion that we should not proceed with this Bill and that it should be referred back to the joint committee.

Mr Chairman, when this Bill appeared before the joint committee for the first time, the CP proposed that it should be withdrawn and submitted to the SAP in particular for their comment, and that it should be advertised in order to enable the general public to register their objections.

The support from other Houses clearly indicated that the whole question of the Liquor Bill—what was and what was not permitted in terms of the liquor industry in South Africa—was unacceptable not only to us, but to many other components of our rather diverse population.

This was done because it had become increasingly more obvious that there was serious concern surrounding the intention particularly to extend the hours of trading during which liquor could be purchased and could be consumed in public. The reaction from the SAP, churches, temperance associations and even the man in the street was witnessed by the number of objections received by the joint committee in this regard.

Whilst expressing our gratitude to the hon the Minister for the amendments to this Bill—there are many positive aspects contained in the Bill, such as the manner in which licence application requirements have been eased so that they can be submitted and considered at any time during the year—any extension of the hours during which alcohol consumption is permitted, is not acceptable to the CP. We will therefore be forced to oppose the Bill and we will vote against it.

I do not intend covering the question in regard to extended hours—including the extension of times during which restaurants can serve alcohol whilst serving a meal—as this aspect will be ably debated by the hon member for Witbank. What I intend to cover, however, are what we consider to be serious omissions from the Bill.

There are too many aspects to cover in the time available and therefore I will confine my attention to the more important ones.

The first aspect which requires attention is one which arises from the fact that applications may be submitted throughout the year. Here I agree to an extent with the hon member for Constantia. However, I believe that the onus for advising interested parties regarding new applications should now be placed on the shoulders of the new applicants. I do not think it fair that existing liquor traders and other relevant interested parties should have the added expense and inconvenience now of having to monitor the official notice section of their newspapers on a daily basis. I think the onus should go onto the applicant himself and I request that the hon the Minister give serious attention to bringing an amendment in this regard.

I agree with the sentiments expressed against the granting of licences to disco’s. Here I can assure the hon the Minister that we support him, maybe even more strongly than his own party does in this regard although I doubt it. I think we share the concern. We are aware of the circumstances and the dangers contained in this whole aspect of how the disco concept has been hijacked by criminal elements. As far as we are concerned, we would be happy if the hon the Minister mobilised the entire SA Police Force were it possible to kill this cancer in our midst as quickly as possible.

*The hon member for Uitenhage must tell us today whether he is grovelling for the sake of and in front of foreign big business, but will allow them to interfere in local politics irrespective of the consequences. He or one of his colleagues must tell us whether they agree with that. At the same time he must also tell us whether he agrees with boycotts, whether they are led or encouraged from inside or outside the country, particularly when it concerns the implementation of laws which are even being implemented by his own colleagues in certain areas, particularly in the Free State and the Cape. He must tell us whether he feels it is right for people to interfere in this and for there to be boycotts in this connection. [Interjections.]

Order! I allowed the hon member for Uitenhage to react to a remark by the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, and I think it is only fair for him to be afforded another opportunity to react, but I want to point out that strictly speaking this does not fall within the ambit of the Bill under discussion.

Thank you, Sir. For the sake of good order in the House, I shall not pursue this matter, but I am looking forward to the hon member’s reply.

You are causing chaos!

Who is talking about causing chaos? If we were to go into this, we could discuss it all day long, but let us confine ourselves to the legislation.

†The second aspect that I believe has not been addressed in this Bill is the question of monopoly formation specific to the liquor industry. We have spoken on previous occasions on this. It is a matter of extreme concern. We do not believe that monopoly forming is to the benefit of anybody except to those money-grabbers who see themselves eventually getting to a situation where, because they have created a monopoly, they are able to manipulate the prices totally to their benefit without any control whatsoever.

I believe that the Government and all participants in industry find the situation acutely embarrassing and not least of all highly disruptive. We have a situation where we want growth in our economy and we have a situation in the retail liquor industry where liquor traders are unable to plan objectively for the future.

The 12-store limitation—I presume that this is still the limitation which is in operation—is one which came after five were agreed to in 1979. Twelve were then stipulated in 1982. Thirty six were mooted by Fedhasa and 40 to 50 is the situation as far as certain producers are concerned.

We must know whether the Government agrees to vertical integration, whether we can continue with monopolies as are being developed before our eyes and whether, if we do not agree with that, we can build some form of control into this Bill to combat vertical integration.

We are living in a circumstance where money seems to be the be-all and end-all of everything. The forming of monopolies is just another way of ensuring that the wealth of this country lands in the hands of fewer and fewer people. I think we must extend ourselves, and I can give the assurance that the CP will give whatever support is needed in this regard towards eliminating these concepts of monopoly which are developing under our very eyes.

The third aspect I would like to raise is that we are living in a sick society, a society which has evolved due to the fact, in my opinion, that we have had the same political party in power for too long. I want to refer briefly to the following aspect which I have to do to motivate what I want to introduce. The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance tried yesterday to play down the extent of corruption and mismanagement in the Government today. In my opinion it is just a further example of how little that hon Deputy Minister knows or understands what is going on around him. I want to warn him that very soon he will have to eat his words minimising the extent to which this type of behaviour exists in the Government today. I know of at least one bomb which is about to explode and which will expose a can of worms which will make the present furore in the Department of Education and Development Aid look like a bun-fight at a school nursery class.

Tell us about it.

There will be an occasion when we will come to that. Then I will be very interested to hear that particular hon Deputy Minister’s comments in that regard. It will make the hair on that hon member’s head rise.

I want to come back to this question of our sick society. I refer to a report in Die Transvaler of Monday, 13 February 1989.

*The report deals with a certain Mr Sol Kerzner, one of the 10 richest people in South Africa. Look at the length of the article which was published on this financial hero after it emerged in the Harmse Commission that he had paid a R2 million bribe to the head of another state. I am not blaming the Government for this. They took action, and we are satisfied with that action. We hope they will take further action in this regard.

It is disgraceful virtually to turn this man into a hero simply because he made money. It is quite clear to me how he made money, and I do not think it is difficult, if one does have money, to become one of the richest people in the world in this way. I think it is disgraceful, and I think the hon members on that side must go and talk to their mouth-pieces. The pro-Government newspapers are promoting the wrong image. The Government must take action.

†People are talking about the corruption exposed to date as being the tip of the iceberg. Something which once again we want to help the Government combat is the question of independent states not levying general sales tax in their countries. However, it seems that the hon the Minister of Finance has no interest in combating this problem, and this is why I am addressing this question to the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, because I believe it falls within his area of authority.

What has that got to do with the Bill?

It has a lot to do with the legislation because one of the most sophisticated smuggling operations concerning liquor is presently being carried out from at least one national state on our borders due to the fact that that national state does not levy a sales tax at all.

What is happening is quite alarming. Let me read to hon members from a short report which I received:

I am sure that the hon member for Uitenhage agrees with me that this is something which has to be nipped in the bud. We cannot take it casually. If a Cabinet Minister does not act, what will the Advocate-General do about it? When we asked a question in the other House last year as to whether the hon the Minister of Finance had an idea as to the extent to which the evasion of tax was taking place, he made some sarcastic remark which is typical of that hon Minister.

If it were not possible for him to establish this, how then is it possible for me to have an estimate? I have nevertheless obtained an estimate, which was obtained very simply. I went along to the people who deal in the liquor industry and I asked them whether they were aware of this business. They are very concerned about it and I am sure that they must have mentioned this to the hon the Minister. Possibly he will talk about this in his reply.

I asked them to give me an estimate and this report which I have has a bearing on that estimate. It reads:

It has also come to the notice of the governing body of the liquor industry in South Africa that a certain brewery in Bophuthatswana is presently producing four times its monthly production capacity. [Interjections.] I agree with this hon member that that is really high productivity.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether the person who gave him the document would be prepared to make a sworn statement?

Mr Chairman, I am certain that the organisation as a whole will be prepared to make a sworn statement in this regard.

We must continue with this, because it is yet again a form of corruption. Hon members cannot tell me that these events take place without unbeknown to anyone except myself and the liquor industry. I am convinced that many people are involved in this and I am appealing to the hon the Minister to take action, because we cannot carry on like this. The report goes on to say:

†On an estimated one million cases of beer, which according to their information is a very conservative figure, they calculate that the fiscus loses, based on a cost price of R11,30 per case of 750 millilitres of beer and at 12% GST of R1,30 per case, R16,3 million just on beer sales alone.

This is the hon the Minister’s department and I am sure that he will act quickly now that I have brought this matter to his notice. This does not only apply to beer sales, but it also affects wine and spirit sales. I think that some of the hon members on this side of the House are in the liquor industry and I am sure that they are suffering as a result of this malpractice and corruption as much as any other liquor trader.

A further question I would like to discuss is the one of shebeens, but unfortunately time does not permit me to cover that.

Furthermore I want to say that in addition to this—which does not only apply to beer, but also to wine and spirits—it also applies to motorcar and truck tyres as well as the purchase of vehicles. I therefore think that the time has come for us, through the intervention of this hon Minister with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Law and Order, to post checks on the roads from, for instance, Bophuthatswana because it would appear that Bophuthatswana is the country which is being used to the major extent to perpetrate this crime. Let us have checkpoints which are manned day and night by the police and let us do away with this clause which says that anyone who imports liquor has 21 days to declare the importation thereof. That clause actually enables the smuggler to get away with smuggling and all sorts of other crimes. I think that is what is going to happen. I think that we will have to do this.

I do not know what the comment was from the hon member for Stilfontein, who is also temporarily in this House until the next election, I am happy to say. Nevertheless, no matter who is involved with this, I think they must be apprehended, charged and locked up because the amount of money involved in this I am sure is just further corrupting our whole society. I appeal to the hon the Minister to use his legal people as they are the experts. I am a businessman and I would not even comment on my qualities as far as that is concerned … [Interjections] … but we are now talking about people in the legal profession. They are the experts and it is their job to come up with legislation which is going to counteract this once it is brought to their attention. I hope that it will be attended to.

Some of the recommendations, Sir, which I have received are the following: That the same GST that applies in the Republic also be imposed in the independent as well as the self-governing states. I realise that this is something which will have to be negotiated. However, I think that the Government needs to negotiate it at governmental level. Furthermore, that the present method of control allowing a trader 21 days in which to declare liquor brought into the Republic from across the border is ineffective and should be cancelled. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, listening to the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis, one is left quite amused with all the problems he has highlighted. However, I think there is, in our own context, a simple solution to this all, which is to abolish the homelands and make South Africa one country. I think we will then do away with all these problems.

The proposed Bill before the House replaces the old Liquor Act of 1977. We have had a magnitude of representations from all sections of society. I therefore think it is safe to say that this is one of the Bills that invited the largest number of representations. I have been serving on this committee for the past two years and we have been dealing with this particular Bill for longer than a year.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis has had his turn to speak. The hon member for Southern Natal may proceed.

This Bill is in keeping with the demands of the changing times and the needs of the distributor and the consumer alike. It is, of course, removing harsh requirements and making it easier to obtain licences It also provides for extended trading hours in certain areas upon application. We have no problem with the principle of this Bill. It is a measure for deregulation but the problem arises as far as the regulations are concerned. On the one hand we have accepted the principle of deregulation but on the other hand, when we bring in regulations to control this Act, let it not be said that these regulations are harsher or stricter than the Act itself because regulations do not come before Parliament for approval and it is possible that the regulations may become harsher than the Bill itself.

That is one of the problems we are looking at, and as the hon member for Constantia said, we must be very careful when we draft these regulations.

It has been pointed out to me by some liquor traders that in the regulations there are limits on certain quantities. I am not too au fait with that. If there are these limits on certain quantities and they have to be entered into various registers before a person buys the liquor, I think that is one of the aspects the people drafting the regulations should be looking at.

I also concur with the hon member on the other side of the House about the clause in which provisions are laid down for the chairman. It says in the Bill that the chairman has the right single-handedly to reject certain applications. [Interjections.] Yes, he may consult. The word “may” does not imply obligation. He may consult, but he may also refuse to do so. I am not a legal expert, but the way I see it he has the right alone either to approve or reject an application. The only qualification there is is that he “may” consult with these others, but it does not say that he “shall” consult before he acts.

There are other clauses we do not agree with, but as I have said, this Bill has been discussed at many meetings of the joint committee and there were many representations by various groups, and without condemning anything, I think there is still room for improvement. I go along with the speakers of the House of Representatives that we should refer this Bill to the joint committee for certain amendments.

Mr Chairman, as the hon member for Constantia explained in his speech it is traditional in my party to allow hon members freedom of conscience when it comes to the sale of alcohol and anything regarding alcohol. However, I am happy to say that in this instance I actually support the viewpoint of the hon member for Constantia in that I see this Bill as an improvement. It is a liberalising of the liquor laws, and this has my total approval.

It has been my experience in other countries in the world that where there is over-control one tends to see misuse of alcohol and drunkenness. I particularly remember a small country like Iceland where liquor sales are the prerogative of the State only and are very tightly controlled and hours of sale are very restricted indeed. I have never in my life seen so many drunks lying around in the streets. This certainly seems to be the case constantly. The belief and the philosophy behind control of alcohol is that one is going to cut down the use of alcohol, but it unfortunately tends to result in misuse. The hon the Minister will know of the situation in Australia before they changed their laws, where drinking time was restricted until six o’clock in the evening, with the result that everyone finished work at five o’clock and got good and solidly drunk between five o’clock and six o’clock and then reeled home. Now that they have changed that the incidence of drunkenness has diminished enormously and they are much better off.

Therefore in general I am in favour of liberalising the liquor laws, but I wish to deal with one particular aspect of the Bill before us. I refer of course to clause 85 which empowers the Minister to extend the closing time of liquor stores until eight o’clock in the evening.

Originally, as we know, the Bill extended selling hours for all stores until eight o’clock, and I regarded that as undesirable, because of the inevitable effect this would have had in many otherwise quiet residential areas.

Now the Minister would consider a motivated application to extend selling hours and this application has to be supported by the local authority in whose area of jurisdiction the licensed premises are situated. In addition such an application has to be advertised.

I particularly like the principle of getting the concurrence of the local authority because until now the Liquor Act has not paid any attention to local opinion. Far too often in the past we have seen bottle store licences being granted against the wishes of the local authority and the local residents concerned.

Somehow or other people who have had no connection with the area but perhaps had powers of persuasion in Pretoria were able to open liquor stores in spite of strong objections. I was amused to read in the newspaper of some discomfited resident of Sea Point who sprayed drinkers in an adjoining pub with his hose because he was fed up with their behaviour. This is obviously an incidence of local displeasure about the granting of that particular licence and I believe that particular licence was granted by a Liquor Board hearing held in Durban which paid no attention at all to local representations.

There are liquor stores in my constituency which are a continual source of disturbance where the liquor licence was granted against the wishes of the local residents and the local authority who also made representations.

I think it is fair to say that the unusual circumstances of South Africa with regard to amenities lead to the difficulties that we do experience with bottle stores in residential areas. Many people who purchase liquor have no place to go thereafter to consume that liquor and they tend to consume it in areas round the bottle store and tend to create a nuisance in the area concerned. In the final analysis the necessary solution is to ensure that in every area there are amenities for all people of all races to enjoy the consumption of liquor in a civilised manner and unfortunately this does not apply at the present time.

That is the one aspect of the Bill that I wanted to deal with. Apart from that it has my total support and I would like to see the hon the Minister go further.

Mr Chairman, to start with I want to refer to the fact that it has been mentioned several times that this Bill must be referred back to the joint committee. I am under the impression that it is not possible to refer a Bill back in its entirety, but that specific amendments must be referred back. I would not like hon members to be under a misapprehension in this regard and that is why I am mentioning this.

I should like to refer to the speech by the hon member for Bryanston, who spoke just before me. The hon member said, inter alia, that where there was too much control the result frequently was an increase in the abuse of liquor. I agree totally with him. As a matter of interest I want to point out that in a submission which the NG Church made to the joint committee, it adopted the same standpoint. The church said it was a very difficult and complex matter to prevent the abuse of liquor. They warned that the combating of its misuse could easily result in the promoting of its misuse. In this connection I want to congratulate the drafters of this Bill, because I think they have succeeded in introducing the necessary balance in this measure. It is in line with a submission by the NG Church, which is also my church, which arose from their standpoint that the Bible accepts the production of liquor as an honourable profession and also accepts the moderate consumption of liquor as a permissible pleasure. They warn that as soon as it is abused, the enjoyment aspect takes a back seat and this results in permanent unhappiness. I think the legislator has succeeded very well in maintaining the necessary balance here.

From this debate it is clear to me that this is still a difficult piece of legislation to understand. In this connection I cannot go back to all the arguments or lack of arguments advanced here. With all due respect I want to refer to the standpoint of the hon member for Nuweveld. The hon member expressed his concern about the trading hours for liquor outlets. He said he was worried that the shorter hours would prejudice licence holders in their particular areas and benefit those persons who run shebeens. I want to point out to the hon member that he should perhaps go back to the legislation and note that in their areas most of the liquor is not sold in terms of licences, but in terms of authorities under section 23, which now become special licences in terms of this legislation. The trading hours which apply to liquor store licences do not apply to authorities under section 23. The hon member should not have any problem in his area because a very flexible situation exists.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, just before business was suspended I referred in passing to special licences and I now want to dwell on this for a moment, because in my opinion it is the most interesting provision in the Bill.

In terms of schedule 1 section 23 authorities and canteen licences now become special licences. Furthermore clause 20 provides that new special licences may be granted for consumption both on and off the premises. In terms of clause 19 any person may make application for such a licence. New licences, the contents of which are not defined at all, may therefore be granted. Any set of circumstances and any particular need may be accommodated in such a licence.

This creates many new and exciting possibilities. Let me give a few examples. My home town, Stellenbosch, is known for its wine culture. Tourists visit the town for this reason. They visit our museums and sightseeing attractions, but in the town itself, particularly over weekends, they cannot notice much of a wine culture. I can imagine that a licence can now be granted on application to the museum or publicity association for a glass of locally-produced wine to be served together with another locally-produced product. Stellenbosch just happens to produce a large variety of interesting cheeses. It can therefore be a kind of cheese-and-wine licence.

At Caledon and Bredasdorp it can be something like a beer-and-bread licence. What about a biltong-and-mampoer licence in the Bushveld? Or a seafood-and-wine licence on the West Coast? We can also take Hermanus which is so famous for its perlemoen as an example. A visitor to its maritime museum should be able to enjoy a plate of perlemoen and glass of wine from the Hemel-en-Aarde Valley in terms of a kind of wine-and-perlemoen licence. This may be the nearest they ever get to heaven on earth.

Hon members can use their imaginations. The possibilities are legion. They are in fact endless! The point is that in this way and by using this privilege we can enrich our cultural life, and increase the joy of living of one and all.

This licence can and must also be used for other practical purposes. Residential institutions which are not hotels will, for example, with the assistance of this licence be able to provide drinks in the rooms in the so-called bar refrigerator we all know. As far as I know there is no other way in which such a facility can be provided. I believe there is a need for this and this type of licence must be used for this.

A good example of where this can be used, are the game farms adjoining the Kruger National Park. Those farms are not hotels, but their guests—most of them are foreigners, because it is probably only foreigners who can afford to go there—do need to have liquor available in the rooms.

Be that as it may, I really hope that this licence possibility will not remain a dead letter of the Act. Of course the ingenuity of the private sector can play a big role in this connection.

I want to make another point in consequence of remarks passed by the hon member for Nuweveld. For many years in our history our liquor legislation differentiated in specific spheres between the different population groups of our country. If this proposed legislation is passed as it now stands, that era will finally be behind us. This measure does not contain a single provision which differentiates on the basis of race or colour. In this sense this legislation is a milestone, but it is also a symbol of the South Africa we are all moving towards. To insert a racial provision, as the hon members for Nuweveld and Strandfontein want, will be a retrogressive step.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must just listen to me. What did the hon member say? He said the two regional members must be people of colour. [Interjections.] In effect the hon member is saying that the Liquor Board, which consists of five members, must have three White members and two non-White members.

It always consisted only of Whites.

That is inconsistent with my understanding of the ideal South Africa we are moving towards—only merit must apply. If on merit there must be three or four non-White members and only one White member, as far as I am concerned that is how it must be. That is why I believe that it will be in the interests of us all if the hon members were to reconsider that approach of theirs.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis really had nothing to say about the Bill, and, moreover, what he did try to say was unfounded. I am only going to mention one example. He is opposed to applications for licences now being submitted throughout the year. He said this would place too much of a burden on the existing licence holders, who would have to monitor advertisements for new applications throughout the year.

That is not what I said.

That is the note I made. In other words the hon member supports this new measure, namely that applications need not only be made at certain times during the year, but throughout the year. [Interjections.] If he does not support it, I do not know where he stands, because that is precisely what he said.

I want to put the next point. It is not true that this places a heavy burden on the licence holders, because at the moment they must also monitor advertisements throughout the year for transfers and removals. It therefore makes no difference.

The hon member said that the longer hours worried him. I assume that the hon members of his party who are still going to participate in the debate are going to elaborate on this further and that they are going to talk specifically about restaurants and hotels. However, I want to point out to the hon member that the standing committee introduced a reduction of half an hour as regards liquor stores. Whereas they could stay open until six thirty, they must now close at six. When the hon member therefore advances his arguments, he must take all the facets into consideration.

I gained the impression that he should rather not participate in debates in which rational arguments have to be advanced. It was clear to me that he did not really fit into this debate and that the kind of speech he made would have been more suited to a political debate.

Mr Chairman, in spite of the number of amendments which have been passed since 1977, it is clear that this legislation can no longer meet present-day needs. A thorough revision of the legislation has therefore become necessary.

We have examined this Bill thoroughly, point by point. Free enterprise within this framework should be encouraged, and for this purpose less expensive and simplified application procedures should be created. Cognisance should also be taken of local conditions when applications are considered by the Board.

Measures which handicap the holders of licences unnecessarily should be removed from the Statute Book. The sale of sorghum beer should be controlled by the Liquor Act.

The chairman of the Liquor Board is granted the power to deal with certain matters without reference to the Board. The Minister and the chairman are also enabled to delegate some of these powers. The hon member for Griqualand West said that the hon member for Nuweveld had made the remark that the chairman had too many rights. However, as I understand it here, the chairman now has fewer rights.

The chairman is also given a discretion to keep meetings of the Board as informal as possible. By doing so, accessibility to the chief functionaries of the Act is facilitated. Provision has also been made for defects in applications to be more readily condoned and for members of the Board having a knowledge of local conditions to be given a voice in meetings of the Board.

These amendments here make it much easier to obtain licences. Previously it cost our people thousands of rands to engage lawyers to help us to obtain licences. This has now been facilitated by the new legislation.

I should like to emphasise that throughout my time in Parliament I have been a member of the Joint Committee on Trade and Industry. I want to say frankly here today that I have personally had a long involvement with this legislation. I am now serving under the third chairman of this committee. I want to say here today that our last chairman was a very capable man who was also always helpful.

Hon members of the committee who are present here, spent many hours with him. He always said that if we did not understand something we should talk to him about it. The hon member for Heidedal was our chairman at the time. The hon member for Strandfontein always asked the most questions. Even the hon member for Nuweveld asked some questions and obtained satisfactory answers. The hon member was satisfied and the legislation was accepted.

At that stage the House of Representatives, in which I was a member of the LP, supported the legislation. Today the hon member for Nuweveld asks that this Bill be referred back to the committee. I know for a fact that the chairman went through this Bill clause by clause and that the entire committee supported it. That is why it is disappointing for me to hear today after a whole year of hard work and sacrifice, that the Bill must be referred back to the committee. I am not one who equivocates. My word is my bond and therefore I support this legislation on behalf of the Democratic Reform Party of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, in an evaluation of the Liquor Act one should examine the matter with an open mind. One should mention points of appreciation, but also points of criticism.

With regard to the appreciation, there are a few aspects which stand out. One point of appreciation relates to the fact that the Act consolidates 35 laws, which will greatly facilitate the implementation of the law. It also recognises that control is necessary and covers aspects such as times, licences, premises, age-groups, etc. These that are being implemented are all norms. It also henceforth prohibits the provision of liquor as a part of one’s wages. It links on consumption on closed days with food consumption and therefore helps prevent of alcohol abuse.

However, the Bill also has a negative aspect which must be emphasized. On the one hand it seeks to control, but on the other hand various control measures are relaxed. This is done by means of the numerous exceptions and exemptions that are made and loopholes that are created. In the first place licences can be obtained more easily. Many people will now want to obtain a share in the market, because the liquor trade is profitable, and it is now much easier than before to obtain a licence.

Secondly, the Chairman of the Liquor Board could be shouldering too heavy a burden and it would therefore be impossible for him, in practice, to make a sound evaluation as to whether a licence should be granted or not. The local community has less of a say in the granting of a licence. I regret such a provision was not inserted somewhere so as to enable local community to have more of a say in the matter. The police do have a certain amount of say, but I believe they should have more of a say because it might prove difficult for them to close down undesirable premises.

The extension of trading hours for the sale of liquor is a further example of relaxation. In approximately 17 instances times are indicated, and the majority of these times have now been extended. The extension of trading hours also contributes to liquor being more freely available. It is a fact. Easy availability of alcohol leads to a greater liquor consumption. That is also a fact. [Interjections.]

Easy availability of drugs leads to drug abuse. The same is true of liquor. There is a close correlation between alcohol-related problems and alcohol consumption. That is also true. More research should have been done in our specific South African society before a measure involving a relaxation in the trading hours for the sale of liquor was placed on the Statute Book. We have a major defect, and I should like to see more attention being given to this matter.

I now come to the composition of the Liquor Board. The legislation does not make provision for an expert in the field of social welfare.

The social welfare of the community is therefore not taken seriously enough in the Act. The dangers of liquor are not being brought to the attention of the public. Liquor is also dangerous, and therefore the Act should make far more reference to the potential dangers of the product. There are measures relating to the abuse of licences, but few measures on the abuse of liquor.

The dangers of liquor when taken in conjunction with certain medicines ought to be spelled out so that the public can be aware of them.

Furthermore, there was not enough research before the existing Act was passed. In South Africa no significant research has been undertaken on the use and abuse of alcohol. This is problem a defect that has already been corrected by countries such as America and Canada in the evaluations they have done. Could an independent, competent body not undertake research on the important aspect of the effect of liquor on the social, religious, psychological and physical aspects of society? The same also holds true for the financing of treatment and research. In the case of certain other products a levy is paid in order to combat certain detrimental effects. Could the liquor trade not do the same? Research and the treatment of victims could then be undertaken using these funds. If alcoholism is a disease, the alcohol consumer should pay the levy.

In conclusion I cannot neglect to give a few statistics on the abuse of liquor. Apart from cancer and heart disease, alcohol abuse is the third largest health problem in South Africa. Between 1980 and 1984 alcohol sales increased from R3,9 million to R6,1 million per day. In 1981 alcohol abuse was a contributory cause in 24% of divorce cases. Approximately 2 out of every 3 children in childrens’ homes under the auspices of the House of Assembly are there as a result of liquor.

In 1983 it was determined that alcohol was a contributory factor in 57% of the total number of road accidents in South Africa. In 1983 it was also determined that approximately R456 million is lost in our industrial sector as result of alcohol— related problems. I again want to ask us to will think very carefully before we are too quick off the mark with this legislation. Therefore we cannot support this measure.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the previous speaker for the way in which he dealt with this Bill. I am very pleased about it. Hon members know that this drug is very dangerous. The hon member indicated everything that this drug was capable of, such as breaking up families, causing road accidents, etc.

One hon member mentioned that the Church also expressed itself against this and referred to the Bible. I want to say immediately that my church is not in favour of liquor. My church does not believe that one should reduce sin; we believe in the eradication of sin. So why do we not eradicate this evil as we are all so strongly opposed to it? It certainly is an evil. Let us eradicate it. How is one going to eradicate it? I think the ministers of religion of today should start telling the truth from the pulpit. When a man speaks before the community, he must express the Word of God and eradicate the evil so that the people may lose the desire for it. Desire encourages people to do things. If the ministers of religion of today would set politics aside and hold up the Word of God to people, we would be saved and the desire eradicated. If the desire should then overtake a person, he would say “No, I will not do that”. I do not drink and I do not smoke either.

So what do you do? [Interjections.]

Order!

I am being honest with hon members. I am serious about these matters because I have received a pile of letters from churches and people arguing about this thing but not one could tell me that this did not form the focal point of these people’s lives because it means money in their pockets.

I gave up smoking in 1953 and have not smoked again to this very day. The Lord saved me from this. I appeal to the ministers of religion of today to convey the full truth to people and to point out to them that they can be saved from the evil of drink.

My colleague spoke about a person who was sober while driving his motor car and a drunken driver who collided with the sober driver’s car. The sober driver was killed outright. Liquor is just a desire which arises in people.

Let us forget about that and move on to the question of the times of liquor sales which should be extended or reduced and I want to enlarge on this somewhat. Hon members who have businesses are only too aware of the situation. A person has many vehicles at the workshop outside the city and, when one knocks off at five o’clock, one loads all those hundreds of workers onto two or three lorries and drives to town. When one arrives there, all the liquor stores have closed already. Where are all those people to obtain their bottles now? I repeat. Where will they buy liquor now? Now we are encouraging shebeens. The owner of a shebeen has no other work and early in the day he therefore uses his lorry to fill his house with a stock of liquor because he knows that workers come to him directly after work.

The worker is embarrassed, however, to go to the shebeen and therefore he sends his child. In this way the child learns the way to the shebeen from an early age. What is to happen to that child in the future? That is why I ask hon members to be somewhat flexible as regards these times. Permit people to buy their liquor themselves and to sit and drink in their houses but do not permit our children to learn the way to these things at this early stage.

I want to contest the granting of licences immediately. If a person applies for a liquor licence, it is the liquor store in town and the church which obstructs one but the church never looks to see how many people are taking the footpath from the city to the Coloured area with their bottles. The church never looks to see how many people are taking that path with their bottles from the city to the Coloured areas. It turns a blind eye. They are robbed on that path. If our people ask for a liquor store in our areas, however, they all object to this. The minister of religion and his people object but they are the ones who drink most. [Interjections.] They themselves drink but they raise objections. I differ with them. There is a small town outside Bloemfontein called Aliwal North. The people put in an application but I think it was turned down. Hon members should go and take a look at how the Coloureds have to walk through the Black area to obtain their liquor. What do the Blacks do? They use their fists. [Interjections.] They break open cars and throw stones but what do the people do? They say: “Give it to them.” Coloureds do not do this; they are moderate people and always ask: “Master, please give it to us.” The master does not want to, however. Today I request that those people receive their licences. The matter must be investigated and a decision reached and then the hon the Minister see what he can do.

I want to revert to licences to discotheques. I do not agree at all that discotheques should receive licences. There are people who have licences for a restaurant but then there is a discotheque in a restaurant and the owner charges admission. How can one charge admission at the door of a restaurant if dancing takes place there too? The Government should look into this and the police be involved so that the matter may be investigated thoroughly and these people be clamped down upon.

There is the question of temporary licences as well. I want to request the hon the Minister to look into this.

Why do we have to go to the police station? The drill is that one goes from one police station to the other. Could we not obtain a temporary licence directly from the magistrate’s office and return? If the police think there is something wrong, they could ask for it and take a look. One could then tell them: “There is the licence; I have obtained my licence.”

Sorghum beer is another evil. Let me tell hon members this story today. Hon members who come from farms are well aware that the owner of the farm gives a worker a scrap of paper—that is his licence—so that he is permitted to brew beer at his house on the farm. He first has to go to his master and say: “Master, I have made two buckets—or 20 litres, as they say.” He receives permission for this—a note. This licence has therefore come a long way.

How much money has the Government made from this licence? When one enters the Free State, the police are waiting for one. How much money has been made from our people travelling from another place to the Free State because, when we enter the Free State, we are stopped? When I was a young boy a few years ago this was the case. We had been to Kimberley and, when we wanted to return, the police were waiting. When are the police going to catch robbers if they arrest us because of a bottle of wine? [Interjections.] No, this is certainly not right. It is definitely unjust. I am speaking from experience today. How much money has been made in this way?

Nevertheless, after all these matters have been raised and amendments and improvements effected, I still feel that this legislation is beneficial. A little uncertainty remains, however, which has a long history. We want to agree to this but first want to understand the matter correctly. We worked on this legislation for more than six months. Why do we have to move rapidly now if there are others who would like to understand it? Hon members are not to become angry with us on this side of the House if we say that some uncertainty remains. We shall support hon members; we work with hon members. There are matters, however, about which people are somewhat uncertain. That is why we first want to be sure about this matter. [Interjections.]

I feel sorry for my hon colleague who has just spoken on the opposite side of the House. I appreciate his little speech. That is correct. This matter must be investigated thoroughly. It affects the community, it affects the people and the ministers or religion. I want to appeal to ministers of religion today: Please, set politics aside! Preach the Gospel of salvation! [Interjections.] Our world is falling apart! A great deal of money is required. [Interjections.] They preach about a variety of matters every day but I appeal to the ministers of religion not to do this. They have a number of stories which they hold up to people but the preparation of ministers … No, I am very sorry. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, permit me right at the outset to congratulate the hon member for Uitenhage on his appointment as the new chairman of our group. He may rest assured of our loyalty and co-operation. I want to tell the hon the Minister: “DET is a bargain!”

The hon member for Heidedal, who has just spoken, upset me somewhat when he said that he wanted to discuss yet another evil—sorghum beer. This gives me a sneaking suspicion that he and the hon member for Stellenbosch may be hand in glove because the hon member for Stellenbosch spoke about biltong and “mampoer” and about seafood and wine and about beer and bread but he did not mention sorghum beer and “phuthu”. I do not know what is wrong with the hon member but I want to tell people of the Western Cape that they do not know what is happening before they have tasted “phuthu”. [Interjections.]

This also leads me to the very significant contribution made by the hon member for Nuweveld except that he made a mistake in one respect and this dealt with his fear that the chairman of the board would not grant a licence to beer halls which had been purchased. The fact is that complaints cannot be raised that there are churches next to those places because they are existing buildings in areas which are zoned for the purpose for which they are used.

This Liquor Bill and its predecessors out of all the pieces of legislation in our country must be the one which best reflects the philosophy as regards change in all spheres in South Africa. When I consider this Bill, I see that we are still moving away from where we started. We are moving away from the idea of the superiority of one specific group of people to another. This Bill which is before us today represents the last phases in this significant movement which we are making.

I offer the following illustration of the statement. Up to 1964 Black people were not even permitted to purchase hard liquor. This was because they supposedly lacked an adequate sense of responsibility and should therefore not be permitted to consume hard liquor. It really astounds one, that sense of superiority of ours to believe that we should see to it that we protect the Black people against themselves! What was the result of that? Nothing other than that vigorous smuggling arose to provide Black people with liquor. This immediately leads me to the hon member for Witbank.

The hon member for Witbank will vote against this Bill because liquor is to become too freely available. I wonder whether he can remember the name of Al Capone. I wonder whether he realises that the name would not have been known to him if it had not been for prohibition. Perhaps he could consider this and may it induce him to consider this standpoint of the DR Church.

If we look back, we see that it is generally accepted today that all people in the Republic can consume liquor with equal responsibility. In my opinion it represents a great agree of progress that we now accept that we all have an equal measure of social responsibility to be able to consume liquor equally well and equally badly.

In the evolution of this legislation we are moving away from making laws to protect people against themselves and in the direction of making laws which will protect the individual and the community against offences by third parties. In this way the enforceability of the legislation is greatly facilitated. If in addition to this we were to create effective instruments for law enforcement, we would really have a recipe for good legislation.

It is precisely these two characteristics which come very strongly to the fore in this legislation. Clause 45 ensures for instance that liquor will not be served to juveniles under the cover of a restaurant licence while the instrument to enforce the provisions of this legislation is greatly improved by clause 128, in terms of which the Minister may prohibit liquor sales by a business for a period of seven days under certain circumstances.

Although there is therefore some relaxation in the provisions of the legislation, the lawgiver has appreciably improved the instruments which may be used to protect the community. If one has to choose between a comprehensive law which cannot be applied and a simple but very much more easily enforceable one, surely there can be no doubt as to which a decent lawgiver would choose. Obviously one has to choose the one which is enforceable.

In my opinion the greatest progress which has been made is in the recognition and acceptance of the fact that Whites no longer regard other communities merely as a source of labour but that we recognise that it is essential that we do everything in our power to create a sound business structure in these areas. This emerges clearly from the simplification of application procedures for which this legislation provides. To tell the truth, one could actually talk about apartheid in revere here.

Secondly, we realise that it is essential for the future of South Africa that a very strong entrepreneurial class be established in sectors of colour. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the Liquor Bill is yet another Bill similar to the labour amending Bills which this Parliament and the joint committee have had to deal with. This Bill has received a very wide range of representations from various quarters, some with positive and constructive recommendations, some with deep reservations and others which did not favour many aspects of the Bill. The joint committee spent a lot of time trying to bring about amendments and acceptable proposals to the Bill, which of course would be related to the community in the country.

The Bill was finally approved by the joint committee, but since there are certain proposed amendments to the Bill, I support the motion that the Bill be referred back to the joint committee so that further consideration may be given to those proposed amendments.

The Liquor Bill is a very controversial one in many respects and therefore one will not be able to provide a Bill that would be acceptable to everybody in this country. The main subject of the debate here today seems to be the manufacturer, the bulk seller and the drinking community, while on the other hand ample provision also has to be made to satisfy the needs of the teetotallers and people of different persuasions in the community.

Although we believe that we should not overregulate, at the same time one must also be mindful of over-abusing anything which is made available, because this could lead to a very severe deterioration in moral, social and community life, a price which I believe will be too high to contemplate if we do not take the necessary precautions at this point in time.

Therefore I agree that the regulation that has been brought up by other hon members here should be looked at very carefully and not only written on paper but also actually applied physically where the need exists. I believe that is a very important aspect because we do have legislation that comes through this Parliament which is then reduced in writing onto pieces of paper—if I may so describe legislation, Bills or whatever.

However, when it comes to implementing them so they have effect and are really implemented at the earliest opportunity and in the communities where it matters the end result—if that is the way to put it—is that I always find that it does not happen. The man in the street does not benefit from those amendments and other things about which we spend hours and days in arguments and debates in order to find a way in which everybody can be content that we are legislating in a correct fashion for the country as a whole.

With these words I want to say that the labour legislation is a very big issue and the extension of these things into the residential areas is a great concern for social workers, welfare organisations, other people and the police. From what we already have at present and the evidence that is before us it is really a very major issue that we are all concentrating on in order to curtail and curb it.

I believe that this is very important. We also cannot obstruct this or do anything else because it certainly is a very important cog in the economy of this country. Therefore certain priority or consideration should be given to this because we cannot but support the economy in any direction that takes place in this country.

With these words I would like to leave a message with the hon the Minister that we are going through a very difficult and trying time in this country. This legislation that we are about to pass must be seen to be truly applied at grassroots level and the protection that this Bill provides must be made available at all costs. If not, I believe that this country and its community will go backwards rather than forwards.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the previous speaker’s remarks about the importance of making sure that the benefits of any Bill should eventually be felt by people at grassroots level and not just remain a mere theoretical concept.

I wish to address three aspects covered directly or indirectly by this Bill. Firstly I would like to comment on the fact that the grocer’s licence is being limited to selling wine and the fact that beer is precluded therefrom. I do not believe that there is any reasonable, logical ground for this being so. In a year in which the country is being rocked by scandals of various kinds of corruption I believe that anything that smacks of undue influence of a particular lobby which will benefit one sector of the economy or one group of people as against another, is something that we should guard against. Over the years I have not heard of any logical reason why grocery stores and supermarkets should be allowed to sell wine but not to sell beer. The argument that one drinks wine with food—or at least some people do—and that one does not drink beer with food is clearly nonsensical. Many people have beer with their “braaivleis” and other types of food and I do not think that argument holds water. I would hope that the hon the Minister and the joint committee will look at that matter when they deliberate the amendments.

The second aspect I wish to touch on is the importance of adequate protection for local communities in the granting of licences—whether it be the basic licence for bottle stores in particular or the extended hours that are provided for under certain circumstances in this Bill.

I think there are three particular matters in terms of the regulations that the Minister ends up promulgating that must be properly addressed. The first is that in respect of advertising for objections it is vitally important that there is sufficient local advertising and that it really is brought to the attention of people in the area where the bottle store or liquor outlet is going to be established, so that they know it is going to happen and they are not required to read the small print in newspapers or the Gazette. The hon the Minister should apply his mind to creative ways of achieving that.

Secondly, I believe that local sittings of the Liquor Board are very important. It really does not help a small group of residents in the neighbourhood of a proposed site where a liquor licence is going to be granted to be expected to make representations to a board that is going to sit hundreds or thousands of kilometres away. Local sittings should become standard practice in respect of sittings of the board.

The third thing in this regard is providing adequate opportunity for those residents to put their case. Taking a parallel, we now have small claims courts which enable ordinary people to make representations very easily without incurring major costs. One must not only provide the opportunity but provide it in such a way that, in practice, people who have serious concerns are able to express them.

The third and final point I wish to touch on is the relationship between freedom and responsibility. This Bill does grant greater freedom in respect of certain aspects of the provision of liquor and to that I do not have an objection. I do think however there is a responsibility that not only goes with the licensees but also with the Minister under whose control the licences are granted. That is not to turn our backs on some of the problems that are caused by the existence of bottle stores in some areas.

I am talking and thinking particularly of bottle stores that are located close to or in the heart of residential areas. Undoubtedly, many of these bottle stores—for whatever reason—attract undesirable people in the vicinity and, in fact, create a deterioration in the quality of life of people in the immediate vicinity.

I do not not know precisely what the answer to all of this is. Some of it is policing. Possibly some of it is looking at what type of liquor is supplied by the stores and at what price. I do not know what controls or additional measures could be brought in to alleviate this problem, but I do think that where a licence is going to be granted to a bottle store close to or in a residential area, additional conditions should possibly be attached to that licence to ensure that the people in the vicinity do not suffer. Bottle stores that are in the heart of commercial centres are very often a different case. The circumstances need to be looked at in each case.

Mr Chairman, I gladly follow on the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. He will excuse me if I do not elaborate on the points raised by him.

*In the first place permit me to express my congratulations to the hon member for Uitenhage as well on his election as chairman of the joint committee. He may be assured of my enthusiastic co-operation on that committee.

The CP have indicated that they cannot support this piece of legislation. I should like to spend some time on the reasons which were put forward for this.

Before getting to that, however, allow me to refer to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis’s performance earlier in the House. It was very clear that the hon member was very nervous. I do not blame him for this. I would also have been nervous if my party were faced with the same dilemma as his at local government level. It is clear that Boksburg is haunting them.

While I was listening to his reaction this morning, he reminded me of the boy who murdered his father and mother. When he appeared in court, his plea in mitigation was that he was an orphan. [Interjections.]

The CP, in the words of the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, indicated that they could not support this legislation and he put forward two reasons for this. He said that they had requested the joint committees right at the outset for rereferral of the legislation to the South African Police for comment. Secondly, it should have been referred to the general public and it should have been advertised to draw comment from that direction too. The fact that these two actions were not carried out are the reasons why they are not supporting the legislation.

In the first place I should like to point out—the hon the Minister also referred to this in his introductory speech—that this legislation has come a long way. A start was made on it as early as 1985. In the normal process which this legislation followed it was referred to the South African Police. The legislation went to them. What is more, the police, as represented by Col Wright— the head of Sanab, who is in control of all designated police officers throughout the country—sat in on deliberations of the joint committee on various occasions, gave evidence and replied to questions. The South African Police are represented on the National Liquor Board by Col Willem Roux—a very capable man. They also make a very valuable contribution there. To put forward as a reason that the South African Police were not consulted is untrue. They were consulted fully in every facet of this legislation.

Their second objection was that the general public was not consulted.

I am amazed because not only did we receive representations on this legislation from interested parties, from church and welfare organisations but also from individuals throughout the country. I want to have it on record today that we on this side of the House took thorough cognisance of these representations when we evaluated this legislation. In fact, some of these representations gave rise to certain amendments to this legislation within the joint committee.

I want to mention one example and that is clause 85 which was amended inter alia in that times of business were decreased in consequence of representations which were received in this connection.

It is of further interest to note that the enormous reaction which we received from the general public endorsed the standpoint that the Government should control the distribution of liquor. The desirability of the Bill is irrefutable. Its object accords with all previous liquor legislation, which is to regulate and exercise control over the distribution of liquor in the public interest. In fact, certain measures are reinforced and now provide for more effective action against corrupt practices.

It also came to light from evidence before the joint committee that certain holders of on-consumption licences, especially certain holders of restaurant liquor licences—let me say immediately that I exclude the vast majority of these licensees—are increasingly involved in misusing their licences to provide an undesirable type of entertainment among juveniles in particular. It usually takes place by using a discotheque as a front. Previous speakers also referred to this.

Conditions at many of these places are extremely undesirable and definitely not in the public interest; in fact, they are dens of iniquity where juveniles are exposed to other forms of crime, violence and drug abuse. These places also give a bad name to those licensees who furnish good service.

In terms of existing legislation the withdrawal of privileges from these undesirable licensees is a long-drawn-out procedure. In terms of clause 128 rapid and effective action can now be taken against such corrupt practices.

The hon member for Constantia expressed his concern about the sweeping powers this clause vests in the Minister. These powers are necessary, however. In fact, similar procedures are already being applied effectively in practice in American states like California and Illinois. As the hon the Minister indicated in his introductory speech, this clause, clause 128, makes it possible to prohibit the sale of liquor pending an investigation by the Liquor Board in cases where serious abuses occur. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by thanking all the hon members for their participation in this debate. I listened with great attention to every speech and I must place on record my appreciation for the quality of the speeches and the ideas which were raised here, and convey my sincere thanks to the participants.

Surely it is very clear to all the hon members, if I have summed up the situation correctly, that liquor is a problem which is responsible for many great evils in our community.

The point that we should be very careful not to apply excessive control was stated emphatically here in the committee.

†That point was made by the hon member for Mariannhill. We must guard against over-regulation. At the same time we must keep a balance and guard against abuse of the privilege too.

I think this is actually the essence of the objectives of the Bill before this committee today. I wish to thank the hon member for making that point so clear.

*Mr Chairman, you will have to tolerate me if I make rather slow progress, because this is a very comprehensive piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation which has very sharp points. It is a piece of legislation which, I almost want to say, directly or indirectly affects every sector of our society. Actually I do not even want to say indirectly; it affects us quite directly.

I got the impression that exceptionally little criticism was expressed by the hon members of the principles contained in the legislation. I also got the impression that there were only one or two aspects to which attention must be given, and the hon members who referred to that must please allow me to leave these aspects until the very end of my argument.

I do not want to sound unnecessarily censorious now, but I want to tell my CP friends, the two speakers Mr Derby-Lewis and the hon member for Witbank, that I listened attentively to them and I shall make a few observations in a moment when I come to their speeches. The impression I got was that the hon members really did not occupy themselves with the essence of this piece of legislation. If I had to summarise the contribution they made to this legislation which I would like to noise abroad I would do so as follows, and I shall try to choose my words carefully so that no one will misunderstand me. The message they were actually conveying with their speeches on and their non-support for this legislation was that they were totally opposed to harsh action being taken against people who abused the privilege of a licence. That is true, that is why they are not supporting this piece of legislation.

This proposed legislation is not making new provision for new types of licences. It is making provision for licences precisely as they existed in the past. It is merely facilitating the administrative burden of processing these licences which rests at present on the shoulders of the Liquor Board. It makes it easier for the Liquor Board to give proper attention to these licences in that in future not everything has to receive attention at the same time but is spread over the whole year. Consequently this measure contains no new principle, although existing principles are in fact being refined.

The new principle in this legislation is that we are now able, in terms of clause 128, to clamp down hard on the people who abuse liquor licences in the provision of liquor to people in our community. Those hon members are opposing this. If I am wrong, I apologise, but I think that is the message. I do not think I am wrong.

†I thank the hon member for Constantia for supporting the measure. I have listened very carefully to the points he maintained should be considered in drafting the Bill. We have no objection to looking at that very carefully, because I think it makes a lot of sense as far as advertising and gazetting are concerned.

It is quite interesting that I received a note saying that in certain actions in regard to considering some or other licence certificates in the past one of the judges said that he would condone these actions because although it was a late advertisement in the Gazette, it was put in Die Burger timeously. He condoned this action because more people read Die Burger than the Gazette.

*It is quite likely that all the local newspapers have more advertising value than the official Gazette. I think it was the hon member for Cape Town Gardens who made the point that it should be well advertised among the local community. I should like to support that idea, and I am in full agreement with him.

†I think the hon member is right as far as clause 128 is concerned. It is a fierce provision, as he expressed it. We shall apply it with great circumspection. However, we have decided on this clause because of blatant abuse, and therefore we will not hesitate to apply this clause if there is proof of blatant abuse.

*It seems to me that one of the aspects of the Bill which is not clear and which was raised by many hon members is the composition of the board. In this regard I want to make the following statement. I think the present Act in its present form has a huge limitation in respect of other groups on the board because there are, I think, only three people who are not statutorily elected. These are the three positions which can be used to accommodate other groups.

The objective of this Bill is the following. Firstly there will no longer be a national board as such, but a board consisting of three permanent members and with local representation on regional level. One advantage of the regional boards— several hon members referred to this—is that these boards will sit in the region itself to make it easier for people, as the hon member for Cape Town Gardens also stated clearly, who want to comment and make a contribution, in that they do not now have to travel hundreds or thousands of kilometers. They are therefore able to make their contributions in the region in which the licence applies. I do not think we have any problem with this approach. It is in fact one of the objectives of this legislation.

Secondly there is the question of the composition of the board, which we are now expanding. For example if there were to be six regions, it means that we are able to appoint twelve members of the board in those six various regions. This will give us a large measure of room for manoeuvre to give people from the specific communities involved representation and a say on the board in respect of licences for those communities.

I think we have gone a long way in our departments to eliminate the element of colour from all our laws. I think that one will find very little colour, if any, in the legislation of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I do not think there is a trace of colour in the Liquor Act as it stands there today. Nor would I like to rewrite an element of colour into it. We are met here today in a committee to discuss a bill which is of cardinal importance to every community—I do not care what its colour is. I think it is important that this Bill should also make provision for every community to have representation in the processes of decision-making and the recommendations in terms of this legislation. Those are precisely the objectives of this Bill.

I am probably the person who will have to appoint these people, because I do not think there is anyone else to do it. If there is someone else who wants to compete with me, he must rise to his feet now and say so. I shall probably have to appoint these men, and I think up to now I have done well. Today I want to plead with hon members to trust me. I shall not do things that are wrong and detrimental to the community when we talk about the composition of the Liquor Board. I am asking hon members to trust me and to count on my doing the right thing at the right time and, what is particularly important, in the right place. It is important that I do so in the right places.

I think I have discussed the venues for meetings of the Liquor Board.

†I think they should meet in the regions where applications for licences are being discussed. I do not think that discussions on licences for the Cape region should take place in Pretoria. I fully agree with that and I think the board will also support that.

The hon member for Constantia also referred to the discos. I listened very carefully to him but I hope that he also listened carefully to speakers who support me. We are not licensing discos and I think I did understand the hon member correctly when he referred to disco licences. He was not really referring to the disco but to the liquor licence applied to the disco. I am not prepared to approve of any liquor licences at discos. Anybody can start a disco. I am not prepared to allow liquor at a disco because the abuse is absolutely unbelievable. I think the hon member must go into a disco one night, one which is supposed to be—this was mentioned by one of the hon members—a restaurant but where one pays an entrance fee and they do not even serve a hard-boiled egg. One sees beautiful girls from our communities, who are 12 or 13 years old, sitting with glasses of liquor in their hands. I think that is where clause 128 comes into force.

*The hon member for Nuweveld raised a few problems. However I do not think we can write different rules for different population groups into a law; the same rules should apply to all communities. If a community wishes to be treated in a different way, however, we must make provision enabling such a community to approach us and request that they be treated in a different way and that certain things be done. This Bill makes provision for that. If a community, for example, wants its liquor stores to remain open later than six o’clock under specific circumstances, it must have the right to ask whether the liquor stores cannot remain open until eight o’clock. They must have the right to have such an application approved. That is the point I should like to make to the hon member.

I come now to restaurants. The hon member for Stellenbosch has already discussed clause 23, and I want to let what he said suffice, namely that times are not really at issue here. Many hon members have problems with the provision in clause 22 dealing with the excessive powers of the chairman of the board in respect of the allocation or refusal of liquor licences. I think in this case the problems lies in the word “may”. I also think it is being misinterpreted. An hon member said the chairman may approach members of the board. That is not true. Before he takes a decision he must negotiate with members of the board, and after that he can decide whether he is going to refuse or approve an application, or refer it back to the board. [Interjections.] The hon member must read it.

†Clause 22 reads as follows:

1. (1) An application for a licence … shall be considered by the chairman, and he may, after consultation …

After having done that he may do the thereafter mentioned things. “He may, after consultation” are the words used. In other words, he must consult and after he has consulted he may take certain actions.

*It is precisely what is stated in the Bill. It is stated very clearly in both versions and continues—

He may subsequently take certain decisions. This means that he must first consult; and then he may decide what he is going to do. That is what the legislation states. I want to satisfy the hon member that the legal people say that this is the precise interpretation. He does not have a choice. Consequently he cannot act unilaterally. He must consult, but subsequently he may decide to refer it back to the board, or to approve of refuse the application.

The impression I got was that the basic problem of the hon members who spoke in opposition to clause 22 was that they were concerned about the issue of whether the chairman could refuse a licence.

I do not think anyone has any problems with his being able to approve of a licence. No one has a problem with him being able to refer a licence back to the board. That cannot be a problem.

The only issue is refusal, because he is then encroaching on a person’s possible privileges. If that is the essence of the problem I am prepared to accept that we examine the wider aspect. In other words, if he wishes to refuse, he must refer it to the board. If he approves, then he approves. If no one makes any objection, if he does not prejudice anyone, why should he not approve it? Why should we incur all the administrative costs of people who have to travel to meetings simply because he is prepared to approve of it, provided it does not affect or impair anyone’s interest? That is why I say that if the hon member states that the issue is refusal, I am prepared to look into this matter again, to see whether we can eliminate the “refusal” apart from the clause. In other words, if he wishes to refuse the application, he must refer it to the Board. I have no problem with that.

The hon member for Nuweveld—after a while I did not know whether it was Koppeveld or Bokkeveld, but I shall stick to Nuweveld—must pardon me. I am not saying this because I am being catty, but it may be that vested interests are involved here. The fear the hon member has that the people with a sorghum beer licence are going to lose it under the new dispensation is not true. I am now placing it on record in Hansard that that is not true, that people who have vested interests in the sorghum beer licence business will retain those interests exactly as they are under the new legislation. I think the judges will even accept this as evidence. I think the hon member must accept that that is not true, and that it is not the object of the legislation to deprive people with vested interests of those interests. I would say that that would be totally unacceptable and unfair, and that is the way I would have the hon member for Nuweveld understand it. I hope he will support us in this connection, and also support the legislation.

I take your word for it.

Thank you very much. The hon member says he takes my word for it and I accept that he will now support the legislation.

I thank the hon member for Uitenhage for the very clear elucidation of many of the matters involved. The hon member also referred to the sitting of the regional boards. As regards section 83, to which certain hon members referred as though it were a restriction on free trade, I think we should see the object of this section in a completely different way.

The normal channels of application for liquor licences will be easier to deal with administratively on a regional basis, particularly under the new legislation, because the individual applying for a liquor licence will be able to deal with his own affairs more easily. Since it is now being made easier for the individual we must guard against people applying for liquor licences and then peddling them. I do not think we can allow people to peddle liquor licences.

There is another great danger. We cannot allow people to apply for liquor licences for groups that are normally not entitled to liquor licences. I do not know whether hon members understand fully what I am trying to say. Put another way it means that an individual or a group may not be entitled to a liquor licence if the sale of his or their liquor rights is freely allowed. This means that he can find a second person to apply on his behalf for a liquor licence. As soon as the liquor licence is then granted to that person he transfers or sells it to the group or person that is not entitled to that liquor licence. I hope hon members understood what I am trying to say. That is why there must be a measure of restriction on the issuing of licences, and we have learnt this from experience.

Let us consider a situation three to five years from now. Perhaps I am no longer here in a few years’ time, but other hon members are perhaps here and propose that it be changed from three years to a year. It depends on the way in which the market develops and the industry matures. I hope the hon members will understand when I explain it to them in this way, and consequently also support the legislation.

†I wish to thank the hon member for Strandfontein for an excellent contribution and I want to agree with him that there is room for support. I think there is room for further improvement. This is the beginning of a new era in the legislation regarding the liquor trade in the Republic of South Africa. I think there will also be room for improvement in the future and next year this time we may again find ourselves in this very committee considering new amendments which will bring about further improvements.

*I agree with the hon member that this is the case. I just want to reaffirm that I am not prepared to write an element of colour into this legislation. I think this legislation should be clinically colourless, because only then can it be successful. I just want to say something about the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. I referred to him. I thank him for his support in regard to the issue of the discothèques.

†The hon member referred to specific serious omissions but I could not understand him. I will have to read his Hansard in order to try to find out what he wanted to convey to me.

*As regards restaurants, I want to assure the hon member that the object is that a restaurant may only supply liquor to persons who are having a meal, and this is very clearly specified in the legislation. We want to use clause 128 to eliminate those restaurants which have a restaurant licence but which are in the meantime operating a discothèque and not a restaurant, because those people are abusing the privilege of having a restaurant licence. There were a few places I went to visit at two o’clock at night. The hon member said a moment ago that one pays entrance fee at the entrance and then one’s meal could perhaps be a hard-boiled egg. However, this is not food together with liquor. [Interjections.] I think the hon member also said that the egg had been boiled until it was blue, because if it is not cooked until it is blue it may perhaps be so old that it is bad. That is why it has to be cooked until it is blue. The hon member also referred to the 12 licence restriction.

These are matters which are at present under discussion. I tried very hard to establish where the magical figure of 12 originated. I want to tell hon members that I have not yet been successful. We are taking a long, hard look at this matter, because I think that when there is more freedom in respect of the allocation of licences, one has to deal with two problems. The first is not really a problem. The first is that one now makes it possible for the small man to enter the liquor business. This is very important to me. However, one must also consider another matter and that is the man who does not want to remain small, but must be given an opportunity to grow, without creating a monopolistic situation. The question now is: What is the limit? Is it 12? Is it unlimited? Is it 36? I do not know. We are carrying out an investigation. We hope to arrive at the answer.

†As far as vertical integration is concerned, I think the hon member should know that we have already started. It is not allowed in the country. We have made the announcements already. The decision has already been taken that over a period of 10 years, vertical integration should be phased out completely in South Africa. We will probably make further announcements very shortly. We do not need legislation for that because the Competition Board is in a position and has the power to stop vertical integration. In their investigation of 1982 they virtually recommended that. We did not accept it in 1982 but we are accepting it now.

*The hon member tried extremely hard to link the “tip of the ice-berg of corruption” in connection with GST to the beer industry in Bophuthatswana. I think there is very little indeed the hon member can tell me about that matter because my constituency lies along the border of Bophuthatswana. [Interjections.] I buy it at Rosslyn! [Interjections.] I think we are thoroughly aware of the problem the hon member raised here.

However I do not think it has anything to do with corruption. It is something that is completely illegal, the things those people are doing are completely illegal, and if they are caught a criminal charge will be laid against them. We have already caught some of them.

As far as GST is concerned, my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance has been speaking to the Government of Bophuthatswana for years to introduce GST. I am aware of this. The advantages are so obvious it is just not true. But how does one compel an independent country to implement a law it does not wish to implement? After all, there is no way of doing it. It would be intervention in its local affairs. We are engaged in negotiations in an effort to persuade them to do so, and I agree with the hon member that it is important to persuade them to do so.

Let us examine the question of what I shall call cross-border smuggling. The first case that came to our attention was that beer was being sold at Rosslyn without GST and then taken across the border, but it does not cross the border—it merely goes round the comer and returns. I brought this matter to the attention of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, and he took immediate action. What did he do? The moment anyone buys the beer, he has to pay GST. Then he can do with the beer what he likes. He can take it to Bophuthatswana or Swaziland—the GST has been paid.

Just after we had plugged that loophole the next episode in the saga came to our attention, namely that the production of beer brewed in Bophuthatswana had suddenly doubled. I said to the people who told me this that if it was true I should like to know about it, but they had to bring me the facts and sworn affidavits. Instead of the facts and the sworn affidavits I heard a month later that the beer production had not merely doubled, but had quadrupled.

I want to invite the hon member to bring me the factual information and to tell me who is doing this, because if we catch that person, we are going to clamp down on him hard. He must just bring me that information; then I shall give it my full attention.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister what assurance he can give us that the people providing him with the information are not going to be eliminated by the liquor mafia? This is a very serious matter.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased the hon member is mentioning this and not I, because every time I ask for information it is said that the mafia will make things uncomfortable for anyone providing that information. I want to tell hon members that if that is true, it is not really serious information because it does not harm anyone. [Interjections.] I do not want to say that there is no truth in this. I want the hon member to understand me very well. I cannot go to my colleague with hear-say information for as the Dutch saying goes: “op horen zeggen liegt men veel”. He must please take action. If he does so, he makes a fool of himself because it did not exist. If I have real factual information, I want to give the assurance that we will devise a plan of action. What plan of action we will devise is difficult to say. One will first have to look at the extent and the substance of the information. I cannot give the assurance that the mafia is not going to silence the person concerned because I am not certain whether the mafia exists.

†With regard to the hon member for Southern Natal, I think I have dealt with the situation of the chairman of the board now being allowed to decide single-handedly. I want to say that he does not decide single-handedly. He has to consult with at least two members of the board. I want to leave it at that.

I want to thank the hon member for Bryanston for supporting the measure and I think the hon member has made the point that the local authorities will now be involved in extending certain privileges to licence-holders in their areas.

The hon member made a point which, in my opinion, is valid. I want to give the assurance that if a board is appointed for a specific region the representatives on that board will be from that region and not from other regions. I want to place emphasis on that point.

It is a long-standing policy of ours not to approve licences for bottle-stores in residential areas, but it is not always completely applicable. One will therefore find bottle-stores here and there, especially in Coloured and Black townships where they do not have developed central business areas. If one therefore wants to apply this policy very strictly, one will not be able to approve any liquor licences in those areas. However, we are looking at the situation very carefully, because it is our policy not to allow it.

*I thank the hon member for Stellenbosch for a very good speech. I want to thank him very much for elucidating special licences in particular. I agree with the hon member that they constitute exciting possibilities.

He referred to wonderful licensing possibilities and in particular mentioned a very important one which has recently come into great prominence. Because the quality of the one and two-star hotels has in general become so poor, the idea of travel lodges and guest-houses has increasingly come into prominence. These establishments do not want to be hotels, but at meal and other times they want to provide their guests with liquor. The special licences will make provision ensuring that these establishments are not forced against their will to become hotels.

There is one thing in regard to which I really do agree with the hon member for Witbank and that is that the abuse of liquor is an evil of society. There is no doubt about that. No one in this House will differ with the hon member on that score.

One cannot, however, eradicate this evil of liquor abuse with legislation. A moment ago we listened to the fine speech made here by the hon member for Heidedal. That hon member really placed the emphasis where I as a Christian also believe it should be, which is that the churches must also play their part in combating this evil. I do not think it can be done by means of legislation. Nor do I think it is the function of the State.

The hon member for Witbank said that the chairman was now going to be inundated with applications. However, we have not been considering these amendments since the day before yesterday; they originated in years of practical experience of the problem by the chairman and the board. These are the people who work from day to day with the problems of dealing with the licences. These proposals were born out of that experience. Now a person, who does not even support the Bill, comes from outside and tells us he is very worried and that he does not support the Bill because we are overloading the chairman with work. One should really be more logical in one’s line of thought before one does not support a Bill on the basis of such arguments.

The hon member gave us very interesting statistics, but I do not think it is the function of the Liquor Act and the Liquor Board to eradicate the abuse, the evil of liquor in the communities. That is the function of other bodies and organisations.

It is the function of the Liquor Board to maintain discipline and to monitor what the people who have licences are doing. I think it is the function of the Liquor Board and of the law to deal with people who abuse licences. That is what we should like to do with this legislation, but we are not receiving any support from the CP.

This is one of our greatest problems in eradicating the abuse of licences, because the legislation is not potent enough. Now the CP says they do not want to support us. I cannot understand the logic.

The hon member made one other important point which I should like to have investigated a little on the road ahead. It is the question of research. I think research is important. I support the hon member and I think one should really consider whether it is feasible to place a levy on liquor sales to make research possible. I think that if it is feasible in practice I think it is something that is worthwhile investigating. I want to thank the hon member for the idea. I think we will develop this idea further and see whether it is not possible for something tangible and beneficial to flow from this.

I have already referred to the hon member for Heidedal. I think he was a little mistaken when he said it was necessary to approach the police for temporary licences. That is not true. One goes to the magistrate. A magistrate issues a temporary licence. The magistrate may consult the police, and he will quite probably do so, but it is not the police who issue it. I just wanted to rectify that. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon member, but I understood him to mean that the police issue the licence and that we must go to the police for a temporary licence.

I thank the hon member for Heilbron for his contribution. The hon member made one statement I just want to repeat, and it is one of the primary objectives of this Bill, namely to protect society against the abuse of the privilege of selling liquor to people.

†I have referred to the hon member for Mariannhill. I want to thank the hon member for his support and I believe the points he made were very valid. What he said was true and it is our intention to apply this Bill once it is enacted. I fully agree with the hon member that it must be seen to be applied and it should not merely be on paper.

*The hon member for Cape Town Gardens argued that grocers’ licences should also grant the right to sell beer. If the hon member comes to visit me one day, I shall explain to him why we cannot do so. I think the hon member should rather not lobby so openly. This lobby is very strong. So far we have refused … [Interjections.]

Why not?

Well, if he comes to visit me I will tell him. [Interjections.]

The hon member also referred to regulations, advertising and the regional sittings with the opportunity to make representations. I agree with the hon member and we will definitely look at these points when we formulate the regulations. These are valid points and we will try to incorporate them.

*I also want to thank the hon member for Uitenhage. Some of the hon members also refer to the chairman of the Liquor Board. I want to thank him and the Liquor Board for three years of very hard work which made it possible to have this legislation before us today. Some of the hon members also acknowledged the part played by the chairman, the Liquor Board as well as the department, and I thank them for doing so. I should like to repeat that we in the department have great appreciation for this.

I am just checking to see which hon members I have not yet replied to. [Interjections.]

I thank the hon member for Heideveld for his support. I think the hon member made the point that cognisance should be taken of local circumstances. I think this is very true and I think this ought to play a role in the allocation of licences. I believe, as I have come to know the board during the past few years, that they will continue to do so. They will, with the help of this Bill, be able to do so more easily and to better effect than they were able to do in the past.

I thank all the hon members and I hope the hon members on the Labour Party side are satisfied with all the explanations I have furnished. I hope that they will support this legislation.

Debate concluded.

Bill recommitted.

Mr Chairman, I think that after today hon members will be pleased if they do not hear my voice for about a month. [Interjections.]

This Bill is a direct result of the Government’s stated policy to privatise Government institutions wherever possible. The aim of the Bill is to form a private company to promote the development of inventions in South Africa. A company which will be known as the Technology Financing Corporation (Pty) Limited—in short Technifin— will eventually take over some of the activities of the South African Inventions Development Corporation, or Saidcor, which came into being in 1962.

The objectives of Saidcor were to develop and utilise South African inventions in the public interest. In practice, Saidcor attempted to realise this goal by making technology licensing and venture capital available on a partnership basis, particularly to the private sector.

Although Saidcor achieved considerable successes over the years, both locally and abroad, with various projects—perhaps one could refer to a few of these wonderful achievements during the discussion of the budget Vote—such projects go hand in hand with long phases of development, which mean that long periods elapse before income is recovered from royalties. As a result Saidcor was not in a position to finance the ever-increasing demand for development capital from its own income. The State therefore had to make further loan capital available to the corporation from time to time. However, in order to help relieve the pressure on State funds, the CSIR, as the sole shareholder in Saidcor, was requested during 1986 to prepare the corporation for privatisation.

†Subsequent investigations revealed that because of Saidcor’s financial position, the private sector was at present not willing to take up shares in Saidcor. However, negotiations between the CSIR and the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited resulted in the two institutions agreeing to become equal partners in a new company which would carry on Saidcor’s activities under a new management set-up. In the case of individual projects, private sector investment would be mobilised with a view to achieving industrial growth and increased productivity.

*To avoid the transfer costs of the large number of patents which Saidcor holds both locally and abroad, it was decided to provisionally maintain Saidcor as a statutory corporation. With the consent of Saidcor’s clients, most of the corporation’s existing projects will be transferred to Technifin.

Furthermore, the CSIR and the IDC agreed to let independent auditors determine the value of existing Saidcor projects and to make an amount equal to that value available to Technifin as loan capital. The IDC will also make a corresponding amount available to Technifin as operating capital. This will therefore give the company immediate access to more money resources.

The investigations also made it clear that the agreement could only be fulfilled—I want hon members to listen carefully to what I am saying—if Saidcor were not compelled to repay its existing loan of R22 220 193 to the State. In order to ensure that Technifin has sufficient operating capital, it was agreed that the loan would be converted into share capital and that the shares would be allocated to the CSIR.

As a result of the investigations and negotiations, the activities of Saidcor were considerably restricted^ while uncertainty arose among the corporation’s personnel with regard to their future. Consequently, I agreed that the formation of Technifin could be commenced with as early as 1 August 1988. For that reason the Bill states that certain provisions will be implemented retrospectively. As a result of the transfer of Saidcor’s projects to Technifin, the activities of the corporation, Saidcor, will decrease considerably. For that reason it was decided that the number of directors on the board of Saidcor would be decreased from a maximum of nine members to only three members, because it would basically now be only a blanket organisation. A number of consequential amendments which do not need explanation, are also incorporated in the Bill. Over and above these, there are a few amendments which emanate from the acceptance of the Scientific Research Council Act in 1988.

I believe that the Bill represents the first step on the road to the total privatisation of Saidcor. I should like to invite the private sector to make use of the new opportunities that are being created here. Finally, I want to wish the management of Technifin everything of the best in the enormous and challenging task that awaits them.

Mr Chairman, the joint committee agreed to this amending Bill unanimously without any amendments, basically because the amendments were in keeping with present ideas in and around State financing and the greater involvement of private capital and expertise.

As the hon the Minister said, the amendments contained in the legislation intend to keep the RSA at the forefront of this very high technological industry, namely the development of inventions.

The hon the Minister explained how matters were going to be conducted after an attempt was first made to privatise the corporation which was established in 1962. This was not possible, but the CSIR and the IDC came together and found this vehicle—the creation of a new company—in order to further this high technological industry, and to keep us at the forefront of technological development.

This side of the House supports the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this amendment to the Invention Development Act, 1962, is intended to further define certain expressions; and to provide for the establishment of a private company by the South African Inventions Development Corporation; to transfer certain assets, liabilities and rights of the corporation to the company to be so established; and to reduce the number of directors because the Bill also provides for the conversion of the State’s loans to the South African Inventions Development Corporation into share capital.

Mr Chairman, we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition supports the amending Bill, but allow me to say at once what a pity it is that the high expectations that the former Minister of Economic Affairs had for the South African Inventions Development Corporation, were not realised.

I want to refer briefly to the speech he made at the time. When this piece of legislation was originally submitted in 1962, the then Minister of Economic Affairs said that the aim of the legislation was mainly to take a purely scientific invention through to a stage at which it could be commercialised. The objects of the founding of the South African Inventions Development Corporation were therefore to create a body which had the necessary expertise to evaluate the potential of inventions that were referred to them and to provide assistance by way of advice or financing of further development work if the inventions appeared to be viable.

As a result of the high costs and the long time that it takes to develop an invention to such a degree that it is at all marketable, the South African Inventions Development Corporation could not meet the ever-increasing demand for development capital from its own funds, and it had to approach the State on several occasions for further development capital.

It is interesting to note that in the beginning the share capital was R200 000, of which only R50 000 was taken up by the CSIR.

If the former Minister of Economic Affairs could have foreseen that Saidcor would still owe the State approximately R22 million when the negotiations with the IDC got under way, he would not have been quite so optimistic when initially introducing the legislation. However, the private sector did not show any interest in investing funds in the undertaking and for that reason the IDC stated that they were prepared to contribute an amount equal to the calculated value of the assets of Saidcor with a view to founding a private company in order to pursue activities similar to those of Saidcor. The members of the Board are now also being limited to three, which will bring about a decrease in expenditure.

Furthermore, the Bill provides for the loan debts of R22 million owed by Saidcor to the State, to be written off and, as the hon the Minister said, converted into share capital. We trust that the new company will not be a burden to the taxpayer, and that it will possibly be a greater success in the future than it was in the past.

Mr Chairman, I have pleasure in announcing that we support the Inventions Development Amendment Bill.

Since its inception, this Bill has been favourable in its entirety. The application has been executed in a proper form. Limited cases of the contravention have been recorded in the past year. However, South Africa with all its inventions, qualities and qualifications should look to the future in producing more of its own products in, for instance, the electronic field and the computer sector in order to enable us to have the right to order our own products. However, slow progress is being made in this field.

For the record, in order to afford the company which is to be formed the greatest possible opportunity of achieving success, it is considered expedient to write off Saidcor’s loan debt to the State of R22 million. The Bill provides for the conversion of the State’s loan to Saidcor in share capital. This would enable Saidcor to contribute an initial capital investment of up to R25 million as required, to the new company which, together with the IDC’s equal contribution would afford the company access to an opening capital of R50 million.

Exporting such goods should certainly boost the economy of the country. During the time when the late Dr Malan stopped all imports into South Africa the country was forced to produce its own product which in turn conserved funds. The disinvestment of all these companies from South Africa is surely creating opportunities for South Africa to stand on its own two feet.

Mr Chairman, this appears to represent a classical example of where privatisation is in fact inappropriate, namely an extremely valuable service to the country which has significant long-term value but which, in the shorter term, does not have commercial appeal. We have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I shall be very brief. I want to thank all hon members most sincerely for the support they have pledged to the Bill.

I merely want to tell the hon member for Standerton that these changes have not been effected because the Saidcor is not achieving success; on the contrary, the success of the Saidcor is so great that we must now remove the restrictions on its further development and must give it a broader financial base so that it can bear more fruit. The point is that the Saidcor was not unsuccessful; it was extremely successful, and when the relevant Vote is discussed we shall give the hon member a few examples which will be of great benefit to us in the future.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, if one gets an opportunity to talk about diamonds on a Friday afternoon, particularly when one is not fortunate enough to own any, it is a great privilege.

The CP also supports this Bill. The objective of the amending Bill is to make provision that the executive officer of the South African Diamond Board, who at present is an officer in the service of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, shall be a person in the service of the Board. The CP supports this amendment because it will ensure continuity and also because it brings the position into line with that of other statutory institutions.

A further objective of the legislation is to provide that the relevant Minister shall also appoint an alternate member for the Chairman of the Board. The position at present is that the relevant Minister may, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, determine the conditions on which and remuneration at which persons are appointed by the board. However, by means of this amendment it is now envisaged that the Minister may determine the conditions of service, remuneration and service benefits of the said persons.

Lastly it is provided that the Chairman of the Board may designate a person in the service of the Board to act as executive officer if the executive officer is for any reason unable to perform his functions. The objective of the amending Bill is to ensure continuity, to make the existing legislation more streamlined and implementable in practice, and for that reason the Official Opposition takes pleasure in supporting this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to tell you that according to the programme another hon member was to have spoken now. I do not know where he is—he is not here—and I have therefore taken this opportunity to speak myself.

They say if one has nothing to say and everything has already been said one should not say anything. I should very much like to say that this Bill is merely an administrative measure to bring the legislation into line with other pieces of legislation. We on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I feel honoured today because my party made me the only speaker on diamonds. I am not the only big diamond smuggler in that area, however. [Interjections.]

The Diamonds Act, Act No 56 of 1986, is amended by the Diamonds Amendment Bill of 1989 so that provision is made among other things for the executive officer of the South African Diamond Board (in this legislation referred to as the board) to be a person in the service of the board instead of an officer in the service of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs.

Clause 2(c) which amends subsection 5(4) makes specific provision for the Minister of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs as he thinks fit to appoint a substitute member as chairman of the board.

This Bill also provides for the Minister to determine the conditions of service, service benefits and remuneration with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. It also provides that the chairman of the said board may designate a person in service of the board to act as executive officer in certain circumstances, and to provide for any related matters.

This amending Bill also comprises the repeal of section 15 of Act 56 of 1986. Basically this concerns the work involved in the proceedings and activities of the Diamond Board, conditions of service, remuneration and service benefits as determined by the hon the Minister.

I have no problems with this Bill and as such I support it wholeheartedly, this time without mixed feelings.

Mr Chairman, it is my pleasure to be even briefer this time. As this is largely a procedural measure, we have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I am going to speak even more briefly. Many thanks to all the hon members.

Debate concluded.

The Committee rose at 16h16.