Mr Chairman, before I say a few words about the Environment Conservation Branch, I should first like to associate myself with a plea made here by the hon member for Kimberley North in regard to the Vaalharts Irrigation Scheme. I want to put it to the hon the Minister, who knows that part of the world well, that the Northern Cape area adjoining that region has in recent years been going through a tremendously oppressive period of drought. For us in that part of the world, it was a great problem to obtain roughage. We were simply unable to obtain it. The Vaalharts Irrigation area is the main roughage producing area of the livestock farmers in the Northern Cape. Because that area has experienced a tremendous shortage of water during the past year, and the people there still do not know at this stage precisely how much water is going to be allotted to them, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Kimberley North and request the hon the Minister to try to establish whether he cannot render assistance to the farmers of Vaalharts. If Vaalharts cannot produce fodder, all the financial assistance that the Department of Agriculture is making available to farmers there will be of no use at all.

I should now like to say something in regard to the Directorate of Forestry, and more specifically in connection with the Environment Conservation Branch. Environmental conservation, with all its ramifications, plays an important part in our national economy. The commission which conducted an inquiry into environmental conservation recommended at the time that there should be a Directorate of Environmental Conservation in this department, primarily because the activities of this branch are so comprehensive.

Consequently I want to ask the hon the Minister today whether he will not give consideration to not only making environmental conservation a branch of the Directorate of Forestry, but, as the commission in fact recommended at the time, making it a full directorate of environmental conservation. I want to point out that I am disappointed with the very small section of this sizeable report that has been devoted to environmental conservation.

In the report I read that the chairman and members of the council were appointed by the Minister on 7 December 1982, and that the initial meeting of the board was held in Cape Town on 8 March 1983. Now, the Act provides that the Council of the Environment shall submit an annual report to Parliament. This council was appointed on 7 December 1982, and held its first meeting on 8 March 1983. I now want to know from the hon the Minister whether the Council for the Environment submitted a report to him for submission to Parliament; if not, why not. Why did the council not comply with this statutory requirement during the first year of its existence?

The commission recommended at the time that the Council for the Environment should consist of 20 members. Last year the hon the Deputy Minister introduced legislation in this House. That was on 18 March 1983, and in his Second Reading speech, as recorded in Hansard, col 3458, we read the following words:

The hon the Deputy Minister therefore persuaded this House to increase the number of members of the Council for the Environment from 20 to 25. According to him it was essential at that juncture for shortly after the establishment of that council they had realized that the number of members was too small, and that it should be increased to 25 so as to be able to carry out the business of the council properly. According to my information, however, those five additional members, over whose appointment the hon the Deputy Minister was in so much of a hurry, have not yet been appointed. I should like to know why the hon the Minister has not yet appointed those five members. Why was he in such a hurry about this last year? I want to quote the hon the Deputy Minister further. A little further on in this same speech he said:

During that same debate, and even earlier, the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs alleged in this House that the hon the Deputy Minister was already negotiating with the Coloureds in connection with appointments to the Council for the Environment. Even before that legislation was moved in this House, the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs made that statement during the discussion of his Vote. Now I want to know from the hon the Minister whether his negotiations in that connection were successful. If his negotiations were not successful, why has he not yet filled these additional posts in the Council for the Environment?

In the report I also read:

The purpose of the previous legislation was in fact to make the Council for the Environment the co-ordinating body in regard to environmental matters in South Africa. Here I now read in the report, however, that the co-ordination of environmental conservation on the national level is now being undertaken by the CSIR. I should therefore like the hon the Minister to enlighten us in regard to this specific sentence in the report.

Furthermore, I also want to ask the hon the Minister what progress the Council has made in regard to taking action against litterbugs; those who simply discard everything they lay hands on, those who are making a rubbish dump of our beautiful fatherland. I want to ask him what progress they have made in connection with taking action against such people.

I also want to thank the hon the Minister for having announced that we should make this year the Year of the Environment. I hope that we will succeed this year in taking action against those people who want to turn South Africa into a rubbish dump wherever they go.

The rugby season is on hand, and test matches will soon be played here. When one walks onto the rugby ground, one sees beautiful, clean rugby fields, but when the match is over, it is a disgrace to see what those beautiful fields look like. On behalf of our side, I should like to pledge our support to the hon the Minister, and I hope that he will make an appeal to the rugby and other spectators and to the people who travel through South Africa not to turn our country into a rubbish dump. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he could perhaps give us an indication of what progress has been made in controlling this scourge.

Another very important aspect affecting the Department of Environment Affairs is the question of solid waste. Basically we have recommended that very urgent research should be carried out in regard to this matter and that steps should be taken.

I want to point out an aspect which I have already referred to in the past, and that is bones. If we consider the tonnage of meat that is consumed daily in our country and the amount of bones that end up on the rubbish dump, then I want to say that those bones can be put to very good use in the interests of the farmers of South Africa.

A bone-meal manufacturer tells me that he pays more for a ton of bones than South Africa receives for a ton of its iron ore in the USA. For that reason I think we should perhaps make it possible for enterprises such as bone-meal factories to recover bones from the rubbish dumps of our large cities so that this product can also be utilized. This is a very important aspect, and we hope and trust that the Government and the Council for the Environment will give attention to this matter so that we can find a solution to this situation since problems are being experienced in some of our major cities in regard to the dumping of this waste.

I make an appeal to the hon the Minister and the Government today to take very strong action against those people who are turning South Africa into a rubbish dump by discarding everything they lay hands on, wherever they go.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member for Kuruman as far as the directorate is concerned, and I know the hon the Minister feels the same way. As regards his other questions, I do not believe that the hon the Minister will have any difficulty in replying to them. If the hon member had gone to the trouble of contacting the Council for the Environment he would have known that solid waste is enjoying a high priority with the council at present.

I wish to pay tribute to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister. If there is one ministry that was put to the test this year—by the drought, water shortages as well as floods on the one hand and by the collapse of our fishing resources on the other—it is this ministry of the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister. Therefore I pay tribute to them and to the officials in the Department who did such commendable work and who, over the past 12 months, were able to cope with the problems in such a way that it did our country credit.

†I should like to say something about the threats, the achievements and the opportunities which surround the whole question of our coastal birds at the moment, and my remarks will be particularly addressed to the hon the Deputy Minister.

In August 1983 the Spanish tanker Castillo de bellver sank off our west coast with a cargo of something like 271 540 tons of oil. Miraculously our coast escaped that massive cataclysm because of the fact that the wind was blowing off-shore. The stern section sank about 25 nautical miles west of Yzerfontein in about 400 metres of water. This stern section is estimated to hold between 15 000 and 60 000 tons of oil worth anything—so the Lloyds people estimate—above R18 million. I understand that the Spanish underwriters and the London insurance market have been in touch with the salvage association to consider the prospects of recovering this oil, and I know that survey work has already taken place on the hulk that is lying off our coastline. This hulk lies in the highly sensitive Langebaan/Dassen Island area, and Dassen Island is the main nesting ground and habitat of the Cape jackass penguin and miraculously escaped the last oil slick. I want to ask the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister to monitor these developments very closely so as to ensure that everything possible is done to avoid oil leakage from the hulk whilst salvage work is being carried out. If that hulk were to rupture and the wind was onshore the oil slick would threaten Dassen Island and the 16 mile beach. It would also threaten Langebaan and our most important rock lobster fishing grounds. This is therefore a matter of great importance and I want to ask the hon the Minister to monitor it very carefully. Perhaps he could ensure that when salvaging takes place it could take place at a time of the year when the wind is offshore. I welcome the fact that this salvage work is being undertaken because whilst that oil lies there unrecovered, it is like a timebomb that may go off at any moment. In a wild sea anything could happen, and the results could be very, very serious indeed for this coastline.

Talking of the jackass penguin, I should like to have it placed on record that for the first time in over 300 years, since the time of Jan van Riebeeck, the penguins are back on Robben Island. This is wonderful news. These are birds that were released there, rescued and rehabilitated birds, over the years by the Seabird Centre of Sanccob and, whilst during the most recent storm this little colony took quite a hammering, we do think that they are there to stay, and this is greatly to the credit of conservation in our country. There have been many factors that have made the re-establishment of this little colony possible. These factors have been the work of Sanccob, of the Department of Sea Fisheries in the protection of seabirds, conservation and control by the Department of Prisons at Robben Island, the recovery of the feeding opportunities around the island as a result of its being declared a sanctuary, the reduction of pollution from the harbour with stricter control, and a greater sense of responsibility on the part of ships lying in the bay as far as bilge-cleaning is concerned. This news comes in addition to the news that for the first time we have seen this rare species breeding in captivity at the seabird centre. There was one crippled bird with a broken back and another with one eye missing, and these birds could not be released into the wild environment. These birds have now for the first time bred in captivity thus presenting us with the opportunity, also for the first time, of starting up new colonies of seabirds in areas they once inhabited.

Having said that, one thinks immediately of the constituency of the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries himself, Simon’s Town. One thinks of Seal Island and the possibility of restocking it with some of the rare seabirds that were once there and have since disappeared. One remembers that at the time of Simon van der Stel Seal Island was called Malagassen Island. When Simon van der Stel visited Sea Island in 1687 he wrote as follows in the False Bay report:

The commander took with him three bushels of seabirds’ eggs after his little sortie to the island. Unhappily, these birds have now disappeared, but where we now have a new marine reserve developing in False Bay, it would be good to see efforts made to try to reintroduce these birds to the island. Purse-seine netting in the bay has now been stopped and the big shoals of fish are no longer being broken up. One would therefore like to see these rare species of birds reintroduced to the island. Seals constitute a problem. One knows that. Perhaps part of the island can be fenced off from the area which is overpopulated by the seals in order to provide a habitat again for these rare species that have lived there historically.

I should like to join the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and also express my delight at the excellent report of the Council for the Environment. It is a magnificent document on coastal management, so that we can get better management and control of our coast, the inter-tidal zones and estuary areas and to manage and protect our fragile coastal zone and dunes from off-road vehicles and from development and to rationalize the multiple jurisdiction which exists in regard to our coast. I know this report at the moment is a matter of a functional study by the Commission for Administration, but whatever happens, I trust that like Natal the jurisdiction over our coasts in the Cape will begin at the high-water mark and not at the low-water mark as has been the case so far. Talking about coastal and dune management one immediately thinks of the Inspectorate of Fisheries. All I would like to say in this respect is that if the department is to get jurisdiction over the coast the inspectorate shall have to be strengthened. I am happy because the Inspectorate of Fisheries has had its service conditions improved, although its status shall have to be improved further to bring the personnel on a par with people of for instance the Natal Parks Board so that they can really play a conservation role in respect of our coastal areas.

Finally, one huge opportunity which knocks at our door and which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister, is this whole question of aqua-culture and mari-culture. We know that the future of the fish protein resource must lie in aquaculture and mari-culture. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to investigate the possibility of farming with prawns at Koeberg, using the warm water from the nuclear reactor. It has been done in Spain and in India. Here there is a massive opportunity for a prawn industry. Furthermore the hon the Minister should contemplate going to Taiwan to talk to the Taiwanese authorities about fresh-water fish farming. I believe that between the Taiwanese and the IDC we can set up a giant company, using their techniques, their technology while we will have the opportunity that it creates. We should together form a joint company to perhaps set up a pilot study first and after that a pilot project to develop the 27 million cubic metres of fresh impounded water in our country for the fish industry. Especially in the warmer areas there are huge opportunities beckoning. I ask the hon the Minister to look at this possibility.

With these few words, Mr Chairman, my time has run out. Let my end off just to say how proud we are of what the ministry has achieved and for the manner in which it has responded to the challenges over the 12 past months and for the authority its spokesmen have had on television when dealing with major problems. All of us are grateful to them for the professionalism they have demonstrated.

Mr Chairman, I omitted in my previous speech to extend the welcome of members in these benches to Mr Van der Dussen on his promotion. We also appreciate the services which have been rendered by Mr Wilson van der Merwe, and we wish him a happy and long retirement.

Mr Chairman, I want to devote this speech to the importance of preserving the natural character of the wilderness area falling within the Drakensberg range adjacent to the border with Lesotho; an area which we were fortunate to visit the year before last in a parliamentary group. This particular area used to be referred to as Crown land and can boast of a special character of its own. Agricultural holdings that fell within certain specified strata have been expropriated over recent years and have been consolidated with the original Crown land. This has resulted in most of the area, on the eastern and northern slopes of the escarpment, being included in this large single wilderness area. Tourists come from many countries to enjoy the natural splendour of the surroundings, as do many South African visitors to the area. It is here too that most of Natal’s rivers have their source. It is significant that as a result of the excellent vegetation cover, most rivers are able to hold their flow during the dry winter months, though naturally at a lower level than during the summer rainfall months.

I must compliment the hon the Minister on the dedication of his officials in their endeavours to restore this region to its natural habitat, and for the successes they have achieved in the process. The area that falls under their control is immaculately cared for and is a tribute to those responsible. Hiking trails in this area are providing the public with enormous pleasure, but I would stress the need for careful supervision in order to ensure that erosion does not occur along the pathways.

One views with apprehension reports on the building of a luxury hotel which is being contemplated on private property in close proximity to the forestry reserve. One questions to what degree it will be possible to develop such a complex so as to ensure that it blends in with the magnificent scenery that surrounds it. I am fully aware that architects these days have highly imaginative ideas and that their capabilities are not to be underestimated. It is therefore only to be hoped that if this venture comes to fruition, these factors will be borne very much in mind.

This part of the Drakensberg range is unique, and it would be tragic if it were to lose its appeal as a result of commercial development along its eastern perimeter. I would appeal, therefore, to the hon the Minister to ensure that no abuse of State land takes place as a result of pressures arising from this form of development in the foothills of the Drakensberg. The public should be under no illusion regarding the regulations that have to be complied with to gain access to wilderness areas. There is no such thing as being able to come and go at will in these areas. This ground is sacred and must be treated as such always.

It has been clearly stated that the intention to expand the Drakensberg wilderness area is to protect fragile upper catchments for a number of rivers that rise in this region and to ensure natural plant communities in these areas, and further to ensure the production and flow of silt-free water down these rivers. It is for this reason that I wish to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to the beneficial effects that would result from the construction of impoundments in the berg catchment areas. These need not necessarily be large projects, but there are many suitable sites for small dams which would assist materially in providing a regular river flow throughout the year and at the same time minimize the effects of excessive run-off. The steepness of the terrain in these catchments areas can be the cause of serious river bank erosion in the lower regions, resulting in large quantities of soil being washed into the sea in times of flood.

Before turning away from this particular aspect, I wish to refer briefly to those areas which are administered by the Natal Parks Board as nature reserves. They are well-administered by this Board, prove to be great attractions and are highly popular with the public. This is borne out by the fact that it is difficult to obtain accommodation at short notice in any of these reserves. It is in this context that I wish to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to the assurances given that his department would allocate an area in the southern Drakensberg region, in the Swartberg district, to the Natal Parks Board for purposes of establishing a nature reserve. I am aware that the siting of the proposed reserve was subject to investigation, but I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to finalize the matter without further delay.

I wish to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to my oft repeated cry that farmers in this area were advised several years ago that the department would be taking over selected farms to be incorporated into the Drakensberg wilderness area. They have lived in a state of uncertainty ever since and have experienced many problems. It is therefore time that the matter be brought to finality and that the farmers concerned be compensated for their properties. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to give this matter his immediate attention.

In the time remaining to me, I wish to raise one further matter. It relates to the non-payment of subsidies by the department for irrigation schemes which were installed during the period when subsidies were temporarily withdrawn. I am obviously not alone in this as I have received a number of requests that favourable consideration should be given to the payment of subsidies for installations which were erected during that time. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to investigate the possibility of the payment of such subsidies, provided the schemes involved receive the approval of his department and provided they were erected in the specific period to which I referred.

Finally, I want to refer the hon the Minister to a promise which he made last year regarding a specific tour which he had in mind for the environment study groups of parties in this House. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it appears that hon members have spoken enough about water affairs and forestry affairs, and it is therefore the appropriate time to reply to the individual speeches of hon members.

†I want to start with the hon member for Constantia. He asked me about the water supply position in the Eastern Transvaal and Natal. The position with the water supply in these areas is such that restrictions have either been lifted altogether or to a large extent. However, in the PWV area and in the rest of the Vaal River system the situation is still far from satisfactory. It is actually still very critical. Although we have marginally more water in storage than this time last year, restrictions will have to be retained to ensure that we survive the drought. I sincerely hope that this drought, especially in the Vaal system, will finally be broken during the beginning of the next summer.

The hon member also mentioned underground water resources. I will reply to that in detail when I reply to the hon member for Roodeplaat.

The hon member made mention of the lack of uniformity in the restrictions applied by various local authorities in the PWV area. This is also a matter of great concern to me. Where the department supplies water in bulk, my instructions to the water boards as well as to the local authorities is that certain savings must be made. It is not for me to spell out the details of how these savings have to be accomplished, but I want to tell the hon member that I will have a very good look at ways and means of promoting uniformity.

*I should like to associate myself with what the hon member for Kimberley North said here, and in this connection the hon member for Constantia was also right: I can find no moral justification for people in urban areas continuing to water their gardens with garden hoses while farmers making use of the same system lower down are in dire straits, and have had their water allocation cut to the bone. I cannot condone that.

I† am glad that the hon member mentioned this fact. I will have a good look at ways and means of promoting greater uniformity in the future.

The hon member spoke about the desirability of international co-operation. I think I covered this matter quite adequately in my general remarks yesterday. I want to reiterate, however, that last week we had lengthy discussions with the Government of Swaziland, also in connection with future water development, and I can say today that those discussions were most positive. On the subject of water management with a view to the new constitutional developments, I can give the hon member the assurance that everything possible will be done to ensure a smooth transition. Unfortunately, I am not in a position today to spell out all the details in this regard.

Regarding the proposed development on the Palmiet River, the hon member will be aware that an intensive environmental influence study is still in progress. A decision in this regard will depend on the findings resulting from that study. Sound financial management and the absence of funds do not allow us at this stage to embark upon a considerably more expensive and energy-intensive desalination project as an alternative. I would urge the hon member to read the report of the Water Research Commission in which he will find further information on this issue.

*The hon member for Ermelo and the hon member for Nelspruit spoke at considerable length about forestry matters and I should very much like to thank them for this. I should also like to thank the hon member for Ermelo for expressing his appreciation for the assistance at Pongola resulting from the Domoina disaster. I want to tell the hon member to be a little patient, since I want to make a statement on further assistance in this regard at the conclusion of my speech. The hon members for Ermelo, Nelspruit and Albany also referred to backlogs with regard to afforestation.

†The hon member for Albany requested a policy statement in this connection. I wish to reaffirm the department’s objective to afforest 8 000 ha per annum, provided suitable afforestable land and also the necessary funds are available. The Budget makes provision for an increase of R2,4 million for expansion of afforestation. However, I agree with the hon member, and believe I said yesterday, that we will have problems in future if we do not afforest at least 8 000 ha per year.

*The incentive measures recommended by the Forestry Council, and to which the hon member for Nelspruit referred, will definitely be given sympathetic consideration, and if they are accepted, it will definitely assist in encouraging afforestation. However, I am convinced that the increased capacity of the pulp and paper industry to which the hon member for Nelspruit referred, and which amounts to approximately 3 million cubic metres per annum, will mean improved marketing and, hopefully, better prices for the timber grower due to the increased demand, provided that the processors, in turn, have a market for their increased production. That is of cardinal importance. In this way the problem areas which make afforestation unattractive to the private growers and to the small growers in particular, as the hon member for Ermelo spelt out, should be eliminated.

As regards forestry research, to which the hon member for Ermelo also referred, limited funds are still a problem. However, it is encouraging that we are still among the leading countries as regards afforestation. This once again became apparent during the recent international symposium on sites and the productivity of rapidly growing plantations which I opened in Pretoria on 30 April. It was attended, inter alia, by approximately 60 representatives from 20 countries, excluding the RSA. Apart from the fact that the visitors were impressed, our own research benefited considerably from the contact and exchange of ideas. The forestry industry also contributes its share by funding research projects from the Forestry Industry Fund.

Since reference was also made to the better utilization of timber products, I can draw the attention of hon members in advance to the international symposium on all aspects of research on timber products which will be presented by the CSIR’s National Institute for Timber Research, in co-operation with the South African Forest Research Institute and the South African timber manufacturing industry, from 22 to 26 April 1985.

The hon member for Nelspruit also referred to the sale of the properties of small growers to large processors. I share his concern about this aspect. However, I have already referred this matter to the Forestry Council because I am extremely concerned about it. This also includes long-term lease contracts on existing plantations that have to be entered into by large organizations. According to feedback I received after the meeting of the Forestry Council last week, it appears that the council is approaching the matter sympathetically and will try to find a mutual solution to the problem. Today I want to state unequivocally that if it appears to be necessary at a later stage, I would be prepared to enter into discussions on the matter with the large processors. I do not think it is in the interests of the country for matters to continue in this vein, particularly with regard to delivery to certain of our processing installations.

Whilst plagues and pests, as well as invader vegetation also adversely affect the forestry industry’s production, I should like to pay tribute today to the excellent work the Plant Protection Research Institute of the Department of Agriculture—my hon colleague is unfortunately not here at present—does for the forestry industry with regard to entomology, pathology and the biological combating of invader vegetation, for example, hakea. I have already referred to the fine work the forestry industry is doing, and I am therefore pleased that the initiative was taken to present the biannual forestry festival at Sabie in the Eastern Transvaal, during which the importance and extent of the industry will be emphasized. I hope that this festival will acquire an international flavour in time, thereby projecting our image. I may just add that at present there is tremendous international interest in this forestry festival. The hon member for Nelspruit must bear this in mind for the future. I would also like to attend such a festival. It would be very pleasant. I only hope that there will be enough wood to be able to have a braai!

I replied yesterday to the remarks of the hon member for Meyerton—he apologized for not being able to attend today—and suffice it to say that I thank him once again for the fine things he had to say about the department.

The hon member for Swellendam referred to the activities of the National Parks Board. I share his view wholeheartedly. I dealt with this matter in full yesterday afternoon as well. I should like to state here that I have a great deal of appreciation for the work of the National Parks Board.

Yesterday I referred to the Cedarberg in my general remarks. I would not like to elaborate on that any further now, except to say that I am awaiting a recommendation on the matter from the Council for the Environment. On the basis of that recommendation, as well as other relevant information, I will eventually reach a decision with regard to the matter.

†The hon member for Mooi River and the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to the water supply position in urban areas in Natal. First of all I should like to join in the appreciation expressed for the attitude of the people of Natal and the magnificent work of the Haslam Committee in overcoming the water crisis.

Hear, hear!

This is indeed an example that can be followed in other parts of the country, especially in the PWV area. I think the Natal people, especially those in Durban and Pietermaritzburg set an example to the rest of the country in this connection.

With the implementation of the Mooi River diversion and the measures taken by the Umgeni River Board to utilize run-off entering the river below Nagel Dam and the construction of the Inanda Dam, which started at the end of the last year, the water supply position to the Pietermaritzburg-Durban metropolitan area is secure for many years to come. I do not want to add to the details given in the White Paper 1-81 at this stage because the hydrology is being reviewed at the moment.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether the Mooi River pumping scheme is going to be regarded as a permanent feature in the future?

Yes, certainly, Sir. When I announced the emergency scheme, I said that this would be a permanent scheme.

It has been suggested by the hon member for Greytown that the department should have a careful look at consumption figures to save on capital resources. Experience with restrictions in the Vaal river has shown that after a while consumption figures returned to previous trends. We cannot evaluate this on a year basis; it is impossible to do so. In addition, if the systems are designed for restricted water use, there is no reserve for overcoming exceptional droughts. Water should never be wasted, but we can make use of water in the normal way in good times; otherwise it will evaporate or flow to the sea.

It is not yet necessary to start with the Umkomaas-Umgeni diversion or with the Lower Umkomaas and Illovo development for the areas to the south of Durban, but surveys, geological investigations and engineering studies are continuing. A dam on the Mooi River that will increase the yield of the Mooi River and Umgeni River diversion and that can later be used for other purposes, is also at this moment being studied. All these schemes will ensure plentiful water for Durban and Pietermaritzburg for decades into the next century.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to the degradation of the Tugela catchment. Mr Chairman, I agree that his is a matter of very great concern. I referred to this yesterday. The Government is giving active consideration to the matter at this very moment, and we actually spoke about it this morning. I want therefore to assure the hon member that we share his concern in this regard.

Mention was made of the desirability of closer co-operation with the national states concerning the conservation of catchment areas. Although this matter is receiving attention and is being dealt with by a multilateral technical committee of the self governing states on agriculture and the environment, I will consult with the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development with a view to establishing a similar body also in respect of the national states. I think that is very necessary.

The hon member made a plea for promoting labour-intensive development in the basin. Mr Chairman, I am just as anxious to get the industrial and other development of that basin off the ground and I hope that the Committee of the Province of Natal entrusted with updating its previous study of the basin, and on which the department is represented, will give renewed stimulus to development there. In the meantime generous decentralization benefits are made available by the Government. I repeat once again that I am just as anxious to get the development of the Tugela basin off the ground as all the hon members in Natal. I am anxious for more than one reason, not only because of the development of Natal but also to try to get some of our industries away from the PWV area.

It is the policy of the department to reserve sufficient water in rural basins for all reasonable and economic uses before export is considered. However, if surplus water is available, it will be used in the national interest, and I cannot agree with the hon member that all the remaining water should be left in the basin. I will, however, reply more fully to this issue when I deal with the speech made by the hon member for Upington.

*The hon member for Kimberley North made a very urgent plea on behalf of the farmers at Vaalharts. The hon member for Kuruman reiterated that plea earlier today. The plea concerns the reallocation of the summer quota to supplement the winter quota of water. I think this is a very reasonable request. I shall consider that request sympathetically and announce a timeous decision on that score to the hon members. I think it is a request which definitely justifies sympathetic consideration. However, we will just have to remember that if we grant the summer quota in the winter, and there is no supplementation in the process, major problems could arise in the summer. However, I think the hon member has sufficient knowledge to understand the matter fully.

As the hon member is aware, it has been the policy for years that due to the limited underground resources, subsidies are only paid in respect of boreholes that are used for the purposes of watering stock. I do not know whether I can consider boreholes that are being bored for irrigation purposes for subsidies at this stage. At this stage it is still somewhat problematical, not only due to a shortage of money, but also due to research that still has to be done in this regard. The hon member’s representations have been noted, however, and I shall definitely give attention to them again in the future.

The hon member also asked whether drought relief could not be granted to the dairy farmers at Vaalharts. I regret that the hon the Minister of Agriculture is not present in the House at the moment, since this is a matter of which he should also be informed. I should therefore like to ask that this aspect be conveyed to the Department of Agriculture as well.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member in what he said about using a centre pivot system for Vaalharts; and of course not only at Vaalharts, but everywhere where it could bring about large savings on water. However, whilst I indicated in my speech yesterday that consideration is being given to increasing the subsidy limit of R7 500, the hon member would appreciate that I would scarcely be able to grant a full one-third subsidy on centre pivots as well, due mainly to the financial position. However, I wish to add immediately that I believe we should incorporate an incentive factor in the evaluation of farming works, whereby they can assist in saving water by using active methods. We should encourage this by way of subsidies as well. I agree with the hon member wholeheartedly on that score.

With regard to the pleas of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon member for Swellendam, I just want to say the following.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is conducting a conversation with his hon colleagues while I want to reply to him in connection with his plea in relation to the Addo Elephant Park.

*Yesterday the hon member for Swellendam also raised the issue with regard to extending the Addo Elephant Park. It concerns the inclusion of the Suurberg State Forest in the Addo Elephant Park. I should like to inform hon members that the investigation into the future utilization of that area has been completed, and that steps will be taken to place the State Forest concerned at the disposal of the National Parks Board. Certain actions that are related to the transfer still have to be undertaken, however. As soon as they have been completed, however, the transfer will take place.

†The linking of the Suurberg with Addo by means of a corridor is unfortunately not feasible on account of the high potential agricultural land involved, as well as roads and rail crossings that are causing insurmountable obstacles in this respect. The hon member should, however, leave this matter in our hands so that the department can try to find ways and means of solving this problem.

The hon member for Albany wanted to know whether the annual report of the National Parks Board would be tabled in Parliament. My reply to this question is in the affirmative. The report of the National Parks Board will be tabled as a separate document, and I must apologize for the late tabling of that report this year. Furthermore the hon member made a very interesting suggestion in connection with a joint venture between the Republic of South Africa and Mozambique aimed at the developing of national game parks within the two countries. I am of the opinion that this is a matter which deserves a further investigation and also further consideration. I undertake to see to it that this suggestion is followed up.

*I thank the hon member for Sundays River most sincerely for the fine things he said about me. He said that I was a son of the Eastern Cape. However, that was not the reason why I announced the Wellington Grove scheme. I think the hon member is aware of that. In any case, I thank the hon member most sincerely for the kind things he said about me. I hope that I become like Charlie Malan in the annals of history, since I would find a great deal of joy in my public life.

I announced the Wellington Grove scheme because it has merit. We cannot permit those Sundays River farmers to experience any further trouble due to the fact that the water in Lake Mentz is becoming totally mineralized. A commodity is also being produced there which does not embarrass or cause problems for the Government. The citrus grown there earns us millions of rands in foreign exchange. I therefore want to tell the hon member, as well as the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, that the matters they have raised here over the years have merit and that that is why we were able to react in such a manner.

The hon member put quite a number of questions with regard to obtaining water rights, as well as with regard to tariffs. I think it would take quite long to reply to that in detail, and I hope that the hon member will pardon me if I do not do so. However, I shall reply to the hon member in detail in a letter as soon as possible.

The hon member for De Aar spoke of the position of the irrigation farmers along the Lower Riet River. In the long run it will indeed be necessary for the farmers concerned to establish an irrigation board and to build a dam in order to retain for the summer the water which pours into the river through the Orange-Riet canal in the winter. There is a reasonable flow in winter, but the consumption is not very high, and that water should be stored for consumption in the summer. This can be done in time. However, it will take quite a while before the 16 cubic metres per second of the first phase of the canal are fully utilized. Until then the position of the farmers on the Lower Riet River will be considerably better than it is at present. This includes the farmers of the Lower Modder River. I think that there will also be a considerable improvement in the position of those farmers.

The question of the allocation of the Skeerkraal land rests with the Department of Agriculture, and I think they have already made considerable progress with alienating that land back to White farmers.

The hon member for Winburg expressed the fear that mining and industrial development will be making increasingly greater demands on water from the Sand-Vet scheme of water for irrigation. Representatives from the Free State Agricultural Union, who wanted to see me in this regard, happened to visit me the other day, and I am now able to give the hon member a complete and adequate reply in regard to this matter. I want to thank him for raising the matter, since I think it is a good thing for everyone to know about it. I want to assure the hon member that the allocation that was made to the OFS goldfields from the Allemanskraal Dam is a non-recurring allocation, and that further extentions from the Allemanskraal Dam are not foreseen. I want to give the hon member that categorical assurance. Their supplementation will have to be done from the Vaal River in future. No further allocations will therefore be made from the Allemanskraal Dam to the OFS goldfields and their supplementation will have to come from the Vaal River, particularly in view of the fact that we are also considering supplementations with regard to the Vaal River at this stage.

The hon member also spoke of the raising of dams. We have investigated this matter very thoroughly and it was found that it is not economically justifiable. In fact, the additional evaporation in those dams would increase the losses considerably.

The hon member also raised the interesting point that instead of tackling new schemes, existing schemes should be expanded and stabilized. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member. If I have the time, I shall say more about that a little later, but if not, I should like to have a private conversation with the hon member on that score.

In view of previous experience with neighbouring countries, the hon member also mentioned the fact that alternatives should be considered instead of looking at the Lesotho Highlands project. However, the Government is acutely aware of the necessity that the supply from this scheme must be safeguarded. I want to assure the hon member that this matter is looked at continually during negotiations with Lesotho. He must also realize that the Braam Raubenheimer Committee, which I announced yesterday, will also investigate this aspect, of course.

†I share the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Parktown in respect of his praise for the work done by the National Parks Board. While my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries will reply in regard to the environmental pollution matters raised by the hon member, I am compelled to reply to his suggestion that overseas visitors should pay a higher fee for facilities in the national parks. While I have appreciation for this suggestion, I can foresee certain practical problems in this regard. However, I shall refer this matter to the National Parks Board and the Tourism Board for their consideration and recommendation.

*The hon member for Roodeplaat also deserves our gratitude for his extremely illuminating remarks. I now know considerably more about underground formations than I knew yesterday. He mentioned a few very odd names here which I really will not even try to pronounce. I thank the hon member for his interest in this respect. I think it is a good thing that we have in-depth discussions and go into detail on the question of the utilization of underground water. I expressed my concern in this regard last evening, and I reiterate that I intend to conduct further talks with organized agriculture and other interested parties.

Perhaps I should tell the hon member this as well. I think the time has come for us to take control of underground water. [Interjections.] I do not wish to state it as a fact as yet—I shall first have to conduct talks with the interested parties—but I think the time is right for us to do so now. However, I am concerned about the fact that we have not yet done sufficient research with regard to our underground resources.

I am of the opinion that with regard to all boreholes that are bored under the subsidy system in our country, we should compel the person who bores the hole, or the owner who obtains the subsidy, to supply the department with the detail regarding the formation and the amount of water, and so on, thereby assisting us to build up a data bank in respect of formations, and so on in Pretoria. I think such a data bank could be a valuable instrument in the hands of the department, since our research has lagged behind as a result of the fact that there have been so many requests for our people to find boreholes, that they have practically been unable to get around to their research.

Furthermore, I am considering the fact that we should perhaps have borders registered. I think the hon member said this as well. One should incorporate certain minimum standards with which borers have to comply in the process of registration, and one should also establish a training centre for borers. I think these are all ideas one could follow up. I thank the hon member for his positive ideas in this regard.

In view of the co-operative effort of the hon members for Gordonia and Prieska, I shall reply to them jointly. In fact, just before the hon member for Gordonia resumed his seat, he called upon the hon member for Prieska to speak. There was a plea that not too much water should be taken from the Orange River area, but that the agricultural land of high potential situated within the area should be looked at. I can assure the hon members that it has always been the department’s policy not to take water from a run-off area before ample provision has been made for the economically exploitable need within that area. That is a golden rule of the department. We should therefore not speak of stealing water from one area for another.

I know that that was not part of the hon members’ argument. We must first look at the needs of the area concerned, and if there are surpluses, we can transfer them to another area.

I have taken note of all the problems surrounding the co-ordination of the purchasing of land and the purchasing of water rights, as pointed out by the hon member for Prieska. The hon members held lengthy talks with me in this regard the other day together with the Northern Cape Agricultural Union, and I thank them for their inputs in this regard. We should like to utilize the water of the Orange River, and the easier we can effect water sales in the future without any problems, the better we will be able to obtain the optimum utilization.

I already reacted last evening to the speech of the hon member for Greytown as far as the Inanda Dam is concerned. I do not wish to elaborate on that any further, and I do not think it is necessary to do so, since we had a satisfactory conversation on the matter in the Lobby. I have already dealt with the matter that has just been raised by the hon member concerning the possible postponement of capital expenditure on water supply schemes, and I do not think I have to go into that any further.

Unfortunately, the hon member for Umfolozi is not here at present. He has apologized for his absence.

†There is one more question from the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that I want to reply to. The Wellington Grove weir will be constructed departmentally, and the provision of R1 million this year will be adequate for site establishment, etc. I am satisfied that the decision to proceed with this weir and the connecting canal is the correct one. If the hon member would like any further particulars the department can furnish him with it. The department is considering alternative use for the unused portion of the high-level canal.

*In view of the representations of the hon member for Umfolozi concerning the Lower Umfolozi, as well as the sugar co-operative, I should like to make a statement. After receiving the report resulting from the economic investigation, it was clear that as a result of the detrimental effect on the ecology of the river system downstream, Lake St Lucia, as well as the driftsand problem, which is a real problem, the land which was damaged by the flood should be acquired. The Government has consequently decided that as regards the position of farmers whose land in the Umfolozi flood plain was flooded and irreparably damaged, and in respect of the position of the Umfolozi Co-operative Sugar Planters Limited, the following steps will be taken: The initial soil surface of 2 500 ha which are under sand, are estimated at approximately 1 935 ha after further investigations, and the principle be established that the land which is irreparably damaged be acquired for the State, on the understanding that:

1. (a) that the land that is purchased as a result of being covered in sand be withdrawn from farming activities completely;
2. (b) the control and management of the land with a view to the re-establishment of vegetation, as well as from the point of view of conservation, be transferred to the Directorate of Forestry Affairs of the department;
3. (c) the latest indications are that the land that is covered by one metre or more of sand, is not economically recoverable and that the Department of Agriculture be requested to determine the precise extent, as well as whether the land which is still covered by less than one metre of sand is, in fact, economically recoverable.

After this further investigation, land which is to be acquired will be determined beyond all doubt. If uneconomical units arise due to the purchasing of irrecoverable land, but which can still be cultivated, it will be left to the farmer concerned to choose whether or not he wishes to continue with farming activities on that land. However, he is encouraged to effect consolidation with other units. When uneconomic units arise as a result of the purchasing of irrecoverable land, they must be acquired by the State and obtained at market value. Farmers whose land is acquired by the State, must be compensated at the market value of the land before the flood in order to place them in the same position they were in before the flood. The Department of Community Development will be requested to appoint a valuer in order to conduct a market investigation into the entire area. No individual cases will be considered at this stage. In addition, the principle will be established that farmers whose land is to be acquired due to flood damage, will be retained in the farming industry as far as possible by way of resettlement on available State land. Only a limited area of State land is available for the purposes of resettlement. Furthermore, the principle is established that the State has no obligation to moneyed companies in respect of resettlement and that the Lower Umfolozi floodplain should not be used for growing sugar cane. With regard to assistance to the co-operative, it has been decided to allocate a maximum subsidy of 75% on the repair costs of drainage systems by the Department of Agriculture; a 75% subsidy with regard to the repair costs of riverbanks by the Department of Environment Affairs in terms of the relief measures that have already been approved. It will be recommended to the co-operative that it apply to the Land Bank for a loan for the repair of its transport system and that the interest on such a loan, if it is granted, be subsidized by the State up to 30%. The balance of the interest will be capitalized for the first two years and thereafter it will be repayable over four years at a subsidized interest rate of 30%. Damage amounting to R9 million was incurred by the firm Smith and Co, the private sugar mills at Pongola, of which only R7 million was covered by insurance. It is recommended that a subsidy of R2 million be paid in respect of the uninsured damage, which is equal to the amount calculated as though a loan had been granted to the firm by the Land Bank. The cost attached to this is estimated at R430 000. It is estimated that additional financial implications will be approximately R25 million.

The borders of the area affected by the cyclone are to be extended. In so doing, damage which was only ascertained at a later stage will also be covered.

The services being provided free of charge by the SA Defence Force at present, will be dispensed with on 1 June 1984. The stipulated rental will then be paid by the bodies concerned, viz the Natal Provincial Administration with regard to the ferry, and the kwaZulu Government with regard to the tents.

I am very pleased that I was able to make this statement today. I want to conclude by saying that I am particularly grateful for the assistance the Government was able to give after that flood. I want to reiterate what I said yesterday, viz that as far as possible, people should insure their properties against damage because that is really the best way of surviving such a disaster.

I want to thank all hon members who participated in the debate most sincerely. I think it was a particularly constructive debate. I should like to thank the chairmen of the various groups and their committees most sincerely for the very sound co-operation we were given during the year and I want to give them the assurance that the department’s door will always be open for further consultation. I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank the Director-General, Mr Otto, and all the officials in the department most sincerely for the mammoth task they performed this year. In conclusion, I also want to express my gratitude to the staff of my Ministry for what they have done during this difficult year. I thank them for their exceptionally faithful assistance in all respects, not only with regard to our work.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon the Minister for his reply, and then turn to the subject of fisheries.

I would like to commence with the matter of pelagic fishing. Hon members will recall that during last year’s debate I welcomed the establishment and composition of the Alant Committee on this matter. When the committee subsequently reported on 1 July, I welcomed certain of its recommendations with a measure of cautious optimism, and was then pleased to note that the hon the Deputy Minister, in a statement on 2 September last year, also accepted most of the important recommendations of this committee. It was therefore with some amazement that I note that during 1984 the hon the Deputy Minister appears to be pursuing policies which he was pursuing prior to the appointment of the Alant Committee. In his statement the hon the Deputy Minister said, for example, that he accepts recommendation 10.5 of the Alant Committee that there should be an overall global quota. I therefore find it quite extraordinary that for 1984 the hon the Deputy Minister has quite merrily persisted with precisely the opposite policy. This is particularly important because of the danger of misidentification in the absence of an effective inspection system to ensure that split quotas are adhered to. I warned against this on two occasions last year, and I would like to quote an extract from the Financial Mail of 13 January 1984 to lend force to my warning. In this article the Financial Mail says that the industry “disregarded the distinction between quota and open species and just caught fish until the cops arrived.” Since it seems that the cops never arrived in this case in the sense that no prosecutions that I know of took place, it is a very worrying statement.

Another matter which I believe needs explanation, is the hon the Deputy Minister’s decision to permit a quota in respect of pilchards—the most threatened of pelagic fish species—to a total of 25 000 tons for 1984, not including the by-catch. The hon the Deputy Minister’s 1984 quota is thus 60% in excess of the Alant Committee’s recommendation in paragraph 10.8 that the quota should not exceed 15 000 tons.

Another matter I would like to query, is the question of the continuing policy of a split season. It is part again of the Alant Committee’s finding that pelagic fish can be caught throughout the year on certain conditions. In spite of their finding on page 69, paragraph 7.5.7, that there is no scientific justification for a split season, it would appear that the hon the Deputy Minister is simply ignoring this recommendation. In view of a few facts, firstly that the split season causes severe industrial disruption; secondly, that oil yields are usually lower in summer so that fish is less valuable; and, thirdly, that there is no scientific objection as to when fishing should take place, I believe that the industry should be free to decide when it would be most advantageous economically for them to operate. In this connection I want to refer the House to a quote which has been attributed to the hon the Deputy Minister in The Cape Times of 8 August 1983, when he said:

This is an area where we can give force to that statement.

A final important matter regarding the Alant Committee which I would like to raise is the question of a reconstituted Fisheries Advisory Council, and here recommendation 7.2.2 refers. Recommendation 10.24 gives effect to this in that the existing Sea Fisheries Advisory Council should be abolished and be replaced by a new one which will include a scientific advisory council. In this regard I also refer to recommendation 7.2.4. The hon the Deputy Minister accepted this recommendation in his statement of 2 October 1983 and indicated that he intended introducing legislation this year to give effect to this recommendation. I believe this recommendation is particularly important for the long term, and I would like to know what the hon the Deputy Minister’s intentions are in this regard.

For my part I also believe the collective expertise which was gathered by the Alant Committee should not be lost and that consideration should be given to using most of the members of this body in conjunction with the proposed new Fisheries Council.

Finally, there are a few other matters to which I want to refer very briefly. Firstly, I am pleased to note that the hon the Deputy Minister has accepted recommendation 10.15 regarding seals and seabirds. Secondly, noting the recent experimental catches of crayfish in the West Coast sanctuary, I want to state that while I accept catch experiments provided they are properly monitored before the experiment takes place so as to determine the effect afterwards, I would oppose any move to transform this experiment into a regular rotational harvest of crayfish in the sanctuary at this stage. It would be extremely dangerous to consider such a step prior to a thorough scientific inquiry providing the necessary endorsement. Any further experimental catching should be proceeded with by very careful monitoring well in advance. I further believe that the small man should be allowed to share in such experimental catching in the future.

The third sundry item regarding fisheries is the question of whale research. I was most disappointed to learn that consideration has been given to terminating South Africa’s whale research programme. I believe the work which we have done in this regard and our membership of the International Whaling Commission constitute one of the bright spots in South Africa’s international relations. It would be irresponsible to terminate one of the few points of constructive contact which South Africa still enjoys in the community of nations, particularly so soon after the publication of the report of the Hey Commission, which has identified the importance of right whales off the southern Cape coast. I personally hope that the department will continue its whale research programme. If not, it should be ensured that another body, for example the CSIR, should do so. We should maximize our role on whatever international stage still remains open to us.

I now want to refer to the Council for the Environment. I am, firstly, disappointed by the trend of events regarding this council. I was for example shocked to see that under the sub-programme “Environmental Conservation” of Programme 13 there is no provision whatsoever for the council as a separate budget item. The Habitat Council, National Veld Trust and the Keep South Africa Clean Organization all have separate items, but not the Council for the Environment. This is simply absorbed in “General Administration” under the Vote. I am concerned about it because this indicates a low and purely advisory function for the council whereas to my mind the council should be expanded into a powerful and authoritative voice with real teeth along the lines of the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States. In this regard I want to support the view of the hon member for Kuruman that we should consider expanding environmental conservation to be a directorate of the department. The council should be a vehicle to that development. According to my information the council is at present unsure of its role and status in the eyes of the Government. Although five standing committees were established, I understand that only two of these have produced any tangible results, which is a meagre record for a year of existence. I want to point to two indications of the Government’s attitude towards this matter. The first is that no extra members have been appointed, even though a year has gone by since the enabling legislation made provision for that. Also, I was amazed that the hon the Deputy Minister could not even tell me, in reply to a follow-up question in the House on 9 March this year, whether there were any non-Whites on the council. I refer the hon the Deputy Minister to Question No 7 on 9 March 1984, in col 565 of the Questions and Replies. As I say, the hon the Deputy Minister did not know what the answer was in respect of the composition of the council. In addition, I believe that members have to fund their own expenses when attending meetings and it has taken some of them up to four months to be reimbursed for the expenditure they have incurred attending meetings. If this is correct, then just in general it adds up to what I consider to be a rather unsatisfactory picture. I believe it is necessary at this time—and I make such an appeal—for the council to be afforded independent budgetary status; to be given a director, a committee clerk for each standing committee and a professional officer for each committee; and to be given a degree of budgetary support to undertake its studies on a professional basis.

I think a high priority should be to formulate a national environmental policy for South Africa. I can think of seven important components: Firstly, the co-ordination and integration of legislation, which is at present a nightmare of bits and pieces; secondly, a clear-cut policy on the need and desirability of impact assessments and a directive on when they should take place; thirdly, a package for economic incentives and inducements; fourthly, a national parkland guide plan; fifthly, a statistical score-keeping policy; in the sixth place, an environmental education policy; and, in the seventh place, environmental objectives in the subcontinent in co-operation with neighbouring states. This is a huge field and, if hon members of the Committee are interested in taking this further, I can recommend to them a book entitled Environmental Concerns in Southern Africa. This is a basis for a very constructive debate in Parliament in the future.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Constantia spoke a little with his tongue in his cheek this afternoon, because there is very little to criticize, in fact there is a lot to be said in favour of, the handling by the hon the Deputy Minister of the fisheries portfolio. I think the hon the Deputy Minister has generally been very innovative and has always been prepared to try new measures to protect our marine resources. I share the hon member’s views about the Alant Committee. I think it was an excellent committee. I am quite sure that the hon the Deputy Minister will also deal with the question of the split season. The hon member for Walvis Bay will also touch on that aspect. As far as the crayfish policy is concerned, our scientists were in agreement with this policy and I understand that there is quite a lot to be learnt from this particular experiment. I think the hon member must not forget that in the last year we have seen a turn-about in the status of this department, and we are all very grateful for the schemes the hon the Deputy Minister has embarked upon.

*It is a pleasure to participate in this debate today owing to the obvious successes achieved during the past year in protecting our marine resources. All credit is due to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister for giving this Ministry such a high status in the eyes of the conservation-conscious public in such a short time. This is undeniably true. Of course this also reflects very favourably on this side of the House. I think it is therefore fit and proper for me to give a short review of some of the steps introduced and then suggest further conservation measures on the basis of the steps taken.

What springs to mind first is of course the protection given to those areas which traditionally probably include our richest marine resources, particularly as far as variety is concerned. I am referring to False Bay and Walker Bay being closed to trawlers, to the borders of the Tsitsikamma Park and the St Lucia Park being extended 5 km out to sea, and to the area between Cape Infanta and Barracuda being closed to trawlers. Here we have examples of regional protective measures that have been introduced. Protective measures of this kind were not all that received attention, however. Seasonal protection was also afforded. Other hon members will refer to this. General measures were also supplemented by special measures for individual threatened species. I am thinking here particularly of lobster, abalone, galjoen and the Seventy-four. Original but very practical measures were introduced here. Looking at these measures in retrospect, it is quite clear that all sectors exploiting the marine resources, viz both the commercial sector and the recreational sector, were affected by the measures. It is not only the nature of the measures that is commendable, but also the way in which they were introduced. For example, the hon the Deputy Minister did not hesitate to obtain expertise and advice from outside the department in the persons of Dr Alant and his committee of experts, who did excellent work in connection with certain matters regarding our pelagic fish resources. The hon the Deputy Minister also supported his department’s conservation efforts and functions and as a result of his interest a Marine Control Division was also established, which brought about a great improvement in the organization of the department.

Although I personally have great confidence in the effectiveness of these measures, it is too early to be able to determine the degree of success they may have had. One can definitely say, however, that the department and the hon the Deputy Minister are trying very hard.

†To the extent to which success has been achieved some critics have commented that the hon the Deputy Minister is just plain lucky. This reminds me of the occasion when Gary Player was congratulated by a spectator on holing a 150 metre approach shot. Gary replied: “It is funny, but the more I practice the luckier I get”. I want to say to the hon the Deputy Minister that the more he conserves the happier we are.

*As far as the extension of these measures is concerned, I want to ask that increasing attention be given to the needs and requirements of angling, and the effect that angling has on the resources. I am aware that the hon the Minister is holding discussions and is in contact with sports anglers. In the first place, we actually know very little about this sport. We do not even know how many anglers there are in South Africa at the moment. Their numbers are estimated at between one million and two million. There are also a great difierences of opinion about the impact they have on our resources. Some people maintain that they do not have a significant effect, while others maintain that they in fact have a great effect, particularly since the advent of skiboats. What we are all aware of, however, is the tremendously large capital investment which has been made in this sport, and also that it requires our serious attention.

Apart from restrictions on the size of fish—which in my opinion are meaningless in any case—the first tangible restrictions on angling activities were introduced in the form of protective measures for galjoen. I think the catch restriction of six galjoen is the golden mean. It is enough for the man fishing for the pot and it also affords the sports angler sufficient opportunity to continue with his activities. But similar measures must, also be introduced in regard to our other threatened sports fish. In this regard I am thinking in particular of the garrick, elf, mussel-cracker, black steenbras, red steenbras and other reef fish. I think we should begin with a restriction on garrick and elf. In my part of the world these two species are definitely under great pressure. I want to propose that a catch restriction of 10 elf and two garrick be introduced. I am advocating these amounts to re-emphasize the principle of restriction and not so much because these specific catch restrictions would be optimal. The proposed restrictions I am advocating provide for the fact that elf is a much sought after table fish but that it is also used as bait. In contrast, the garrick is far larger and less sought after as a table fish, but it is an excellent sports fish. Both these species should be protected against sale. In my opinion it is only a matter of time before the licensing of skiboats and anglers and closed seasons will have to be introduced if we want to make the effective control of angling as a sport our objective. At the same time one also wants to recognize the importance of angling as a sport by protecting the resources they utilize exclusively against commercial exploitation. The hon the Minister has already closed the Infanta-Barracuda area to off-shore or coastal trawlers. In my opinion they are one of the greatest destroyers of angling resources and the ocean-bed. I am also advocating that this industry should not be allowed to operate within 5 km of our entire coastline. This will demonstrate the Government’s concern about the future of angling as a sport and also its determination to conserve the resources.

Finally I just want to say that I have in no way changed my opinion about angling competitions since last year. At that stage I said that there were ways of making this unacceptable practice less unacceptable. With the assistance of the Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery, Mr Rudi van der Elst has initiated a fish-marking programme, and perhaps the angling clubs could change their competition in such a way that they could make a contribution to research by joining this programme instead of placing the limited resources under further pressure with what in my opinion are meaningless competitions.

I want to refer briefly to an article in the May/June edution of Ski Scene by Graham Winch in which he expressed his concern about the status of reef fish, as follows:

He went on to say:

It is quite clear that the conservation campaign of the hon the Minister and his department has gathered momentum and is beginning to show results, particularly if we consider the present attitude of angling clubs. In this connection I want to refer to The Argus of 17 May. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in associating myself with the positive contribution of the hon member for Uitenhage. Before I bring a few matters to the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister, I should like to take this opportunity to thank him most sincerely for the interesting trip he arranged for us in the pouring rain to Silvermine, Noordhoek and Hout Bay. We enjoyed the rain; we enjoyed the trip and we enjoyed the relaxation. Thank you very much.

When we talk about the sea, we are dealing with an enormous larder given to us by the Creator, and we have to use it judiciously. We should see it in the same light as our own larder at home. If we eat the same kind of food every day, that food will soon be used up. We must therefore also use the larder of the sea judiciously.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister to two matters. The first of these is the overexploitation of the fish resources along the coast of South West Africa by foreign powers, and the second is the renewal of the licences of the land-based factories at Walvis Bay. As far as the activities of foreign boats are concerned, I want to bring it to your attention once again that at present approximately 185 boats are operating in the fishing waters of South West Africa. Many of them do not abide by the Icseaf agreement at all, but catch fish within the recognized limit of 13,5 nautical miles, and there is also evidence to prove that they are catching pelagic fish.

I think the most conclusive proof of this is to be found in the reports submitted to us by the patrol boats of South West Africa. These patrol boats have no authority to take action against the foreign boats, but they can maintain surveillance and ask the boats to leave the area, and so on. I just want to draw attention to the period October and November of last year to give hon members an idea of the activities of foreign boats in that area. At that stage there were 61 Russian, 61 Scottish, 4 East German, 11 Polish, 12 Rumanian, 6 Bulgarian, 6 Cuban, 2 Israeli and 2 Portuguese boats operating in that area. During the same period there were the following number of contraventions, and hon members must bear in mind that the boats are only caught when patrol boats come upon them by chance: 1 Russian, 3 Spanish, 15 Polish, 12 Rumanian and 1 Cuban. And so it goes on, year in and year out.

We also believe this to be the direct cause of the shortage of sole, stockfish and other types of fish being experienced in Walvis Bay.

The Republic of South Africa is also experiencing problems at the moment. I ascertained from the report that the snoek catches had declined. I also note that concern is expressed in the report on the large number of small stockfish that were being landed. I think that the shortage of this type of fish can be directly linked to the operations of those foreign boats along the coast of South West Africa.

Walvis Bay is also experiencing major problems in this connection. Its industries and smaller undertakings are having a hard time, and one of the factories that processes white fish has closed down. That is why I want to ask South Africa to take action in order to curtail the activities of those foreign boats. South Africa defends the territory of South West Africa with so much success. With far less effort those foreign boats could also be kept out of the fishing waters of South West Africa.

Experience has taught us that those boats leave very quickly when warships are in the vicinity. The solution to the problem is therefore very simple. The mere presence of warships in the area is enough to solve the problem.

As far as the land-based factories are concerned, I should like to emphasize that this is the main stay of the economy of Walvis Bay. The stabilization and the effective survival of those industries is therefore of vital importance to Walvis Bay. It is also of great importance to South West Africa, since 90% of the fish is caught in the South West African waters. South West Africa also controls the quotas. That is why we know it is of equally great importance to them.

I also want to ask that South African interests in Walvis Bay be protected, and that, in consultation with South West Africa, attention be given to these licences as soon as possible. These licences were allocated for a period of 25 years, and they expire at the end of next year. I can just mention that this year a pilchard quota of 30 000 tons and an anchovy quota of 200 000 tons was allocated to the land-based factories in Walvis Bay. These quotas are for the period from 15 March to 31 August.

By the end of April the pilchard quota had already been filled, and large quantities of adult pilchards were even caught in Walvis Bay harbour. Scientists ascribe this extraordinary phenomenon to conditions caused by El Niño in the Atlantic Ocean. That species was forced by the warmer water to seek refuge in the colder Benguela Current where there is also a sufficient supply of plankton.

I am merely mentioning this to indicate that this is not the normal state of affairs. Something has happened which has caused this tremendously large amount of pilchards to be present along the coast of South West Africa. That is why I feel it is also a good thing that additional quotas were not allocated.

In other respects the industries in Walvis Bay are doing well and by 13 May of this year 37 000 tons of pilchards and 2 500 tons of anchovy had been caught. These are round figures. The reason for this anchovy catch is that at this stage the industry is avoiding anchovies and concentrating on marsbankers. Approximately 62 000 tons of marsbankers have already been caught. This is therefore a total of 105 000 tons in a period of six weeks. The industries in Walvis Bay are therefore doing well. However, we are concerned about the survival of those industries. There is uncertainty, and we should like to put an end to this uncertainty and speculation as soon as possible. Tremendously large capital investments are at stake—in buildings, machinery, boats, etc. The private sector also has large investments in boats, and is concerned about what is to become of them when the present term ends next year. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister that a decision be reached in this regard as soon as possible. I repeat that I realize that this is a difficult matter, but I believe that the department of the hon the Minister, the Department of Foreign Affairs and South West Africa will have to hold a discussion on this as soon as possible.

In the few minutes I still have at my disposal, I should like to thank the Marine Development Division for the research being done in the RSA and the research being done by a team of 30 along the coast of South West Africa. It is extremely encouraging to see that their activities are increasing and that they are appointing experts to examine the position of snoek, plankton, abalone, stockfish, etc. I think this is really commendable.

I just want to mention in passing that reference was made in the report to contentious decisions by the hon the Minister. However, if we consider the saving of 35% compared with the previous year as far as the pilchard catches along the West Coast are concerned, then I say: I prefer the man who makes contentious decisions to the man who makes no decisions at all. We thank the hon the Minister most sincerely.

Mr Chairman, I shall not follow what was said by the hon member for Walvis Bay because I want to raise a matter that has generated a good deal of controversy in the USA and Europe and which has also been the subject of reports in the Johannesburg and Pietermaritzburg Press. I am not referring to the question of acid rain.

I know that air pollution is monitored by the Department of Health and Welfare. However, their concern is mainly in regard to the impact of this pollution upon individuals. While I am not oblivious of the impact upon individuals my concern today is more in respect of the impact upon our environment.

Every day nature emits tons of acid into the environment but this seems to cause no harm whatsoever. However, the problem of acid rain arises from the emission of acidproducing substances, particularly industrial sulphur and nitrogen oxide, into the environment by man-made sources. These can either return to earth as dry fall-out or, if they become mixed with water, they then become the so-called acid rain. If we take the case of neutral water we find that it has a pH level of approximately seven. This is the level we try to maintain in our swimming pools. If the p^H level declines it means the water becomes more acid. For each decline of one integer in the acidity level there is a tenfold increase in acidity. Therefore, a pH level of four is ten times more acidic than a pH level of five and 100 times more acidic than a pH level of six. Mr Chairman, if I achieve nothing else by this I may at least get hon members to watch the pH levels of their swimming pools!

When we look at normal rainwater, we find that it has a pH level of 5,7. It is said that if one reaches a pH level lower than five, it begins to be harmful to the environment. In South Africa there have been reports of pH levels of 4,5 in the Johannesburg and Pietermaritzburg areas. However, we do not know whether these are regular readings or whether they are purely isolated readings. In the USA there have been read-outs of two in the Los Angeles area. This is water that is actually more acid then vinegar.

Acid water can have a serious impact on our environment. Scientists believe that acid rain kills trees by soaking into the earth and reacting chemically within days to release aluminium and potassium. These metals are toxic to the fine root systems of trees. The metals are then carried by water run-off into lakes and dams where they kill aquatic life because fish in particular are very sensitive to aluminium poisoning. In some overseas countries one finds lakes which have no fish life whatsoever. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA estimates that there are 48 000 lakes in the USA in which fish may soon not be able to live. In Scandinavia it is estimated that there are 20 000 lakes at the present moment that are actually dead. In the famous Black Forest of West Germany it is estimated that approximately half of the forest has been damaged by acid rain. In fact, they now use the term there “forest death”.

Turning to the position in South Africa we find that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature included South Africa among the countries in the southern hemisphere that are threatened by acid rain. One can understand why this is because in South Africa we have oil from coal refineries and we have coal-burning power stations as well as other industrial complexes. We also have rivers receiving runoffs from mine dumps, and these run-offs are often acidic. It has been estimated that every day Escom releases 3 000 tons of sulphur dioxide into the environment. Sasol releases, I am told, about 350 tons a day. This comes in the form of hydrogen sulphide, an evil smelling gas as those who live on the Reef will know.

We are fortunate that in South Africa our coal contains a low level of sulphur. I believe that our sulphur content is about 1%. The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs will no doubt be able to tell us that that is about a quarter of the sulphur content of the coal in the northern hemisphere.

Moreover, in the Highveld where we have our coal-burning power-stations, we have a dry winter and therefore the atmospheric conditions are very stable. Thus the airborne sulphur and nitrogen oxides remain in one place for some time. This is good for the rest of the country, but it is not necessarily good for the Eastern Transvaal since inevitably some of these oxides must be deposited on the veld.

When the new power stations are completed, it is estimated by some that the potential fall-out of sulphur dioxide in the areas concerned could be as high as 221 tons per square kilometre annually. The equivalent figure of the Ruhr Basin, an area which is considered to be very bad, is 260 tons per square kilometre per annum.

If one looks at the situation in South Africa, it would seem that the amount of sulphur dioxide pumped into our atmosphere is still much lower than in Europe and North America. Research is being done on this question by Sasol, the CSIR and Escom, and I know that Sasol and Escom are in the process of spending millions of rands to purify the emissions from these plants. This is an expensive process. The hon the Minister of Health and Welfare commented that Sasol is spending R20 million on one plant to overcome this problem. At present we do not seem to have a serious problem, and we have the advantage of being able to learn from the lessons of others.

The point I should like to make to the hon the Deputy Minister is that we should take advantage of this. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister and his department to monitor the fall-out of acid rain very carefully. I should like us to watch particularly the harmful effects that this could have on the environment. I know that the Department of Health and Welfare is watching the impact of this on individuals.

There is a need for the various efforts in this field to be carefully co-ordinated, and I believe that the department is ideally placed to do this. There are numerous unanswered questions to which we need to find answers. We know that acid rain exists, but we are not sure exactly how it is caused. We know that its impact can be serious, but we do not know exactly what that impact is. We know that it is expensive to counteract, and I have mentioned the R20 million that Sasol is spending. We do not know what it will eventually cost us in the future if we do not do enough to counteract the problem now.

Mr Chairman, I should not like to comment on the speech of the hon member for Edenvale simply because I know completely nothing about that very interesting subject, and I trust that he will excuse me.

*I want to associate myself with other hon members on our side who congratulated the hon the Deputy Minister on his actions and the steps he has taken during the year. I want to include the Marine Development Branch in this, for what they are accomplishing. I want to address a special word of thanks to this Branch for the extremely informative trip they arranged for us on 26 April. I must say that if the Weather Bureau had fallen under the Department of Environment Affairs at this stage, one could have deduced that their arrangements with regard to the weather were premeditated because this certainly had quite a number of after-effects a few days later.

Of the various marine resources abalone is without exception the smallest in terms of annual sales and probably in terms of the total investment in processing and exploitation infrastructure as well. In terms of total volume the industry is the smallest and if one considers the 165 tons of dressed product, its relatively small size is probably most striking when one compares it with the 5 000 sheep carcases which represent less than one day’s slaughtering at the Maitland abattoir and with the 180 000 loaves of bread which represent less than 0,3% of our country’s daily consumption. It is an extremely small industry. But this is not a fair comparison, because as far as the abalone industry is concerned, we are not dealing with our daily bread, but with a product which is almost unique in the world and which is largely restricted to the Walker Bay area and the Cape Peninsula area, and a matter concerning which our people can become extremely sensitive and emotional from time to time. We are dealing here with a much sought after product which forms a ineluctable part of the Cape seafood tradition, but which undoubtedly and unfortunately is not immune to the threats of over-exploitation, or even legal catches by members of the public and professional divers. This is a product which because it is so popular is subject to unscrupulous behaviour by members of the public and a few professional black market operators.

We are dealing with a small industry on which members of the public, professional divers and others frequently adopt conflicting standpoints, which certainly does not make such matters as control of exploitation, processing and availability to the public any easier. It is therefore gratifying that the members of the industry and the public are prepared to establish a joint management association to bring about greater unity of action in this regard. The activities of this envisaged management association will be similar to those of the West Coast rock lobster management association and I would like to believe that the Marine Development Branch of the department will also find in this a significant aid to managing and controlling this resource.

One wants to express the hope that the sensitive matter of the availability of abalone on the local market and the matter of excessively high prices will be a high priority of this management association and the Marine Development Branch. It is really a pity that abalone is not even readily available in restaurants in Hermanus, and that the restaurant owners blame this on the excessively high prices. It is really unacceptable that as much as 100% is added to the diver’s price as the price to the public, without there having been any processing. I want to express the hope that this much sought after product can be developed, through greater understanding between the respective parties and through firm action on the part of the hon the Deputy Minister, into a unique component of the Cape seafood tradition for which Walker Bay can become world famous in the same way that Lourenco Marques became famous for its prawns.

Another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister is the question of restrictions on the catching of line fish. The hon member for Uitenhage referred to this, and I want to agree with him. The purpose of catch restrictions is, on the one hand, to protect resources against over-exploitation without denying the public the privilege and the pleasure of angling. There are merits in this, and I should like to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on the steps he has taken with regard to galjoen and express the hope that he will take further steps with regard to seasonal restrictions.

A second reason why catch restrictions have become necessary for line fish, is the untenable position which developed for the professional fisherman whose entire livelihood is being threatened by the present uncontrolled fishing.

I do not intend to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to restrict the privileges of people fishing for pleasure, but what I do want to emphasize seriously is that people fishing for pleasure can no longer be allowed to catch an uncontrolled number of line fish and then sell the surplus for next to nothing in competition with and to the detriment of the professional fishermen.

This state of affairs has become worse recently, particularly in the Franskraal, Kleinbaai and Gansbaai areas as a result of various other problems. When a situation arises that deprives professional fishermen of their livelihood because 66% of the total snoek catches are sold by people who fish for pleasure and who charge as little as 50 cents and 75 cents simply to get rid of them, the time has come to take serious action.

In view of this I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister, as a matter of urgency, to introduce catch restrictions on snoek and to take further steps and to consider introducing greater orderliness and control in the line fishing industry.

Mr Chairman, I want in the first place to congratulate the hon the Minister, the Director-General and the members of the water component of the department on their outstanding service and activities during times of drought and flood during the past year. They have set an example to all other departments on how to act in times of stress as expeditiously and as well as they have done.

*I want to begin by making a few general remarks. Some of these matters have already been raised in the course of the debate, and the other are announcements which I should like to make.

Firstly I wish to refer to a national plan for nature conservation. I should like to report to the Committee that considerable progress has been made recently with a national plan for nature conservation. During 1983, an agreement was reached for the first time by all the official nature conservation organizations in the country about priorities with regard to areas which still have to be conserved. As far as environmental considerations and environmental impact studies are concerned, the department consistently advocates the principle that environmental considerations should be taken into account on the same basis as economic and other considerations in all development planning, and it is propagating this principle among all developers.

I should like to mention the fact that in February this year, I appealed to local authorities to require developers to submit environmental impact studies with regard to any development affecting beaches, sand dunes or coastal zones.

I detect a positive change of attitude among the general public with regard to the conservation of the environment. The department’s efforts in this connection will undboutedly be intensified.

†During 1983 South Africa joined the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources as well as the International Waterfowl Research Bureau. Through these organizations valuable channels of communication with scientists in other countries have been opened to South Africa.

As regards the current problem of coastal administration—a matter referred to by several speakers—I have the following to report. The Council for the Environment investigated current problems concerning the management of our coastline. In short, the recommendations which flow from that investigation, advocate the establishment of one body responsible for coastal management, and that existing legislation which duplicates and overlaps, should be drastically rationalized.

*I have accepted these recommendations, but since several departments will be affected by them, the Commission for Administration has been requested, as part of the process of rationalization of the Public Service, to investigate the functions of coastal management as a matter of urgency. This investigation has already commenced.

†During the past financial year the Government spent, in total, an amount of R850 000 on the “Keep South Africa Beautiful” campaign. Half of this amount was used on an extensive awareness campaign in which the media, I am glad to say, played a very important and helpful part. A special investigation by the Human Sciences Research Council is being done at present, at the request of the department, to ascertain how successful this awareness campaign has proved to be and on what aspects of it our efforts should be concentrated in the future.

*As far as littering is concerned, I want to say that apart from the current efforts of the “Keep South Africa Clean” organization, together with the “Clean Community” project, the Council for the Environment is also giving attention, among other things, to the problem of littering within the wider context of solid waste management.

†We are making progress with this and it is enjoying the attention of the Council for the Environment and the active participation of departmental officials.

As regards World Environment Day, a special effort is being made this year to highlight the evils of littering. Special posters have been distributed and a handbook for the guidance of local authorities is being sent to all concerned. I want to make a special appeal today to all local authorities to set aside 5 June as a day on which all their law enforcement officials can bring the evil of littering to the attention of the public. I say: Let us see if through co-operation and positive action the man in the street cannot be motivated to play his part in putting an end to littering.

*Then I want to say a few words about the Council for the Environment. Since its inception, this council has held three meetings, and two further meetings are planned for this year. Five standing committees and two working committees functioning under the guidance of permanent committees were established at the end of last year, namely the standing committees for policy and strategy, for man and the environment, for living resources, for pollution and solid waste, and for the built-up environment. The working committees are the committees for noise and for coastal zones. In co-operation with its committees, this council has laid down general guidelines with regard to its objectives, policy and strategy, and these guidelines will be more closely defined as the committees proceed with their activities.

I am sure that we all agree that the National Botanic Gardens do work of outstanding quality in preserving our botanic heritage in eight botanic gardens and two flower reserves scattered all over the country. I am also sure that we all agree that the activities of the board of trustees of the National Botanic Gardens should be expanded as rapidly as possible, in order not only to preserve plant species and gardens, but also to keep abreast of developments through research and training and to obtain the co-operation of the general public in order to enhance their knowledge and love of indigenous plant species and to encourage the planting of these in private gardens and houses.

†With this objective in mind, I can find no fault with the plea recently made by the Director of the National Botanic Gardens for greater financial contributions from the private sector for the development and management of these gardens. I would, however, like to point out that the State itself makes a very substantial financial contribution for these purposes. Examples are contributions for the provision of capital works like buildings and for their maintenance. These expenses are all borne by the State. In this connection I think it should be noted that a new headquarters for our National Botanic Gardens is planned for Kirstenbosch and that these plans indeed are far advanced. Funds for the administration of these botanic gardens are calculated, for the information of hon members, in accordance with a formula applicable to all cultural institutions. It is true that the formula is still in its infancy, but I am quite satisfied that, if it is properly implemented, the formula will indeed provide adequate funds for all our existing gardens. I must confess, however, that I am worried about the position of our new gardens. I am worried about funds for the development of new gardens, of which another three are being envisaged. I am worried that the funds will not be available in time. Consequently this matter is being taken up strenuously with the Treasury.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

If the hon member does not mind, a little later.

*We must bear in mind that the National Botanic Gardens are managed by a board of trustees, of which six members are appointed by the Government and five by the private sector. In addition, we must remember that this Board of Trustees decided on its own initiative, with my consent, to launch a fund-raising programme. Funds raised in this way will not be paid into the Treasury, but will be used by a committee consisting of the Board of Trustees and the members of the Botanical Society of South Africa for carrying out specific projects which will be identified by donors in botanic gardens. In cases where no project is identified by donors, the funds will be used for projects identified by the committee at the recommendation of the director. Let us hope, therefore, that the private sector will be generous in its support of the campaign.

†In this connection I as a Capetonian should like to say that as the headquarters of the botanic gardens is to be expanded and a new building erected in Cape Town, a great responsibility rests on the shoulders of the municipality of Cape Town and other municipalities in the Cape Peninsula region, the public in general, as well as the business community especially those who attract tourists to Cape Town, to make generous contributions to the fund-raising appeal that has been launched.

I will now answer a question from the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Sir, I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister where the other three envisaged national botanic gardens are to be sited.

I am afraid I am not in a position to give that information. I do not have it at my fingertips. I will pass it on to the hon member by way of a letter. I am not familiar with the facts.

I now wish to pass on to fisheries. During the past year I have made it my goal to try to combat deterioration in our marine resources by implementing what I describe as a conservative exploitation policy. In this I have received the co-operation of and very often many hours of extra effort by the Chief Director of Fisheries and his staff. I want to say to these officials who have co-operated so well, that future generations of South Africans will be grateful to all of them for their efforts to safeguard our irreplaceable sea heritage.

*The chairman of the FDC, who is sitting on the gallery, also gave me valuable assistance. I wish to thank him and his officials for the work they did.

†In many respects our conservative approach has resulted in a changing of established viewpoints on marine exploitation. Some of the adjustments have caused a certain amount of inconvenience to people in the industry and, of course, also to the department, while others, I must confess, have caused a raising of eyebrows. But then the administration of marine resources is an inexact science. No one has all the answers, and experimentation is surely not unhealthy if its objective is improvement and growth. What I can claim is that there is unquestionably a much more positive spirit by both the industry and the public to conservation measures than ever before. Of course there will always be criticism. I may say my shoulders are not narrow! Whenever there are established and vested interests involved in decision-making then naturally there will be criticism. However, I am quite sure that the right climate has been established for further essential corrective measures and that the foundations for a healthy fishing industry have been laid. Very important, the recognition of the public of South Africa’s right to enjoy our marine resources has been publicly acknowledged and never ceases to be emphasized.

The promised staff improvements have been made by the creation of a top structure for the marine development branch of the department. I think the way has been paved for more efficient management. Unfortunately serious shortcomings still exist, particularly as a result of the acute shortage of law enforcement personnel. The inadequate number of inspectors have done a great job under very, very difficult circumstances, and I want to congratulate them on successful prosecutions to the extent of some 1 200 during the past year. They have done a very good job in difficult circumstances in patrolling our coasts and monitoring catches on land and at sea.

Steps have been taken following a work-study investigation which, I believe, will result in the recruitment of more sea fisheries officers. The question of honorary sea fisheries officers is also enjoying our attention at the moment and I shall be making a more detailed announcement about this in due course.

*As far as the specific resources are concerned, particular attention has been given during the past year to the regulation of the crayfish industry. In accordance with the recommendation of the Treurnicht Commission, the first step was to guarantee and entrench the rights of private boat-owners. This also means—and this is very important to me and my department—that the department will not be involved in time-consuming price disputes in future. However, it is time we gave serious attention to the rationalization of the catch effort; in other words, there will have to be a considerable reduction in the number of boats.

With regard to the mesh used for crayfish traps, I just want to refer to the phasing-in of a 100 mm mesh for the covering of crayfish traps, which allows a high percentage of under-sized crayfish to excape without being unnecessarily handled and injured, which would retard their growth. In some circles, especially on the other side of the House, the opening of a part of the Peninsula’s crayfish reserve on an experimental basis was questioned and criticized, but apart from the fact that scientists have been able to obtain some very useful information, it has also helped to relieve the fishing pressure on the southern area, Area 8. I personally visited the area during the fishing period, and I was very impressed by the unspoiled conditions of the crayfish, unlike the crayfish in areas where more intensive fishing takes place.

As far as I am concerned, the permit system for private crayfish catching is here to stay, and the same applies to the system with regard to perlemoen. In spite of arguments that it could not be administratively enforced, very few problems have been encountered. The department is now able, for the first time, to get an indication of the number of crayfish removed by the public. The public took out 20 000 crayfish and 5 700 perlemoen permits during the season, not to mention the black market catches.

With the official opening of the crayfish route, we have also come closer to the realization of a long-cherished ideal, namely to make some of our most popular seafoods more freely available on the local market, but prices are still exhorbitant, in my opinion, In order to deal the black market a further blow, serious consideration is being given to the registration of only selected restaurants and hotels as seafood suppliers.

†In other words, what we are envisaging is the possibility of only appointing certain selected restaurants and hotels as licensed premises where seafoods can be sold to the public. If that happens and we find that certain restaurants which do not appear on that list are in possession of, for example, kreef or perlemoen, they will be subject to prosecution as they can only have obtained those seafoods illegally.

*During 1983, I also saw fit to introduce two seasons for the catching of pelagic fish. At first, this step was not popular in all the circles of the fishing industry, but retrospectively I am able to say that this experiment was in fact a success and that the whole idea gradually gained more support. What was particularly gratifying was the fact that many non-quota species were landed during the first season. The catches of red-eye sardines which are outside the quota, were indeed a record. I am not very happy with last year’s pilchard catches, especially since the percentage used for human consumption during that season was not what one would have wished. On the basis of the 1983 season, however, I decided to experiment with a double season again this year. This year, however, I have taken special precautions, with the co-operation of the industry, and also in the light of the recommendations made by Dr Alant’s committee to protect the sardines by allowing only a very modest quota of 25 000 tons.

The species composition of catches is constantly monitored, and I am satisfied with the results so far this season, with regard to the controlled catching of pilchards as well as the catching of non-quota species. This year, it is not the red-eye sardine, but the lantern fish—another non-quota fish—which is being caught in fairly large numbers. I also want to mention that I try to stay in close contact with the pelagic fishing industry by way of regular consultations and discussions with leaders in the industry and boat-owners and skippers.

†Attention is also at present being given to the place and the role of the private boat owner, to the rationalization of catches and the further refinement of the control system in the pelagic industry.

*Furthermore, I should like to refer to the report of the Alant Committee. This committee discussed most of the problems surrounding the pelagic fishing industry in July last year and made recommendations in this connection. The report was very well received, and of the 26 recommendations, 18 have already been accepted. Attention is also being given to some of the others. With regard to the recommendations that will not be implemented, there are very good reasons for this. For example, the committee recommended that there should be an overall quota for all pelagic species. As was the case last year and again this year, a quota was introduced for pilchards and anchovies only. This system has specific advantages, and I want to refer to those advantages. The catches of all species are now being carefully monitored so that the species which are under pressure may be protected. Without this system, we would never have had the information which we have today with regard to individual species.

As far as pilchards are concerned, the committee recommended that the industry should be encouraged to catch only 15 000 tons of pilchards, and that pilchards, mackerel and maasbanker should be used mainly for human consumption. The overall pilchard quota this year is 25 000 tons, with a possibility of an additional catch, which may increase the total to 35 000 tons. However, I am pleased to be able to report that the industry has given its full co-operation in protecting the sardine resource. Pilchards are mainly being caught by refrigerated sea water boats this year, and all the indications are that the percentage which is being utilized this year has increased considerably.

In the case of one factory, for example, only about the same tonnage of pilchards was landed as in 1983, and almost twice the amount of fish has been canned. In other words, that fish has been tinned.

I also want to say a few words about the proposal concerning a stabilization fund. The committee’s idea of a stabilization fund is a matter to which the industry itself should give attention, while the broadening of the spectrum of fish species which may be caught has not received sufficient attention up to now. We are giving attention to the matter at the moment.

The problems pointed out by the committee with regard to seals are also receiving our attention. As a result of the collapse of the skin trade, attention is being given to alternative ways of keeping seal numbers within certain limits.

As far as the question of buildings is concerned, our biggest problem, of course, lies in the fact that the Fisheries Branch in Cape Town is spread over about 12 separate buildings. This matter is receiving my attention. Unfortunately, it is not a problem which can be solved overnight, especially in the present economic climate.

This brings me to the question of a White Paper. I want to make an announcement in this respect. Concerning the national policy document about the optimum utilization of the marine resources envisaged by the Alant Committee, I take great pleasure in announcing that some progress has already been made with the drafting of such a policy document.

The intention is to submit a White Paper to Parliament during the 1985 session. The purpose of that White Paper will be to set out the problem surrounding the exploitation of the marine resources and the protection of these resources against over-exploitation, together with marketing and all the other things that are necessary to bring about a healthy fisheries situation in South Africa. Very strong emphasis will be placed, among other things, on existing structures, existing legislation and the facilities and manpower in the department itself. Training and communication in the industry are two key areas to which special attention will be given in the White Paper.

†In connection with the suggestion by the committee for the abolition of the advisory committee, and the representation by the various sectors of the industry on a newly constituted committee, I just want to say that the term of office of the advisory committee expired at the end of March. Suggestions have been made to me by the Chief Director and others as to the composition of the advisory committee. I am considering the matter at the moment but I think hon members will be interested to know that we shall be coming to Parliament next year with legislation to consolidate the Sea Fisheries Act and the Fisheries Development Act as well as these other pieces of legislation dealing with the exploitation of our marine resources. This will, of course, also include a new type of advisory council. Of course, representation by the various sectors is also very important. This is something that the hon member for Pretoria East feels very strongly about. In fact, the sectors already have their own committees.

May I please ask a question?

No, Sir, I am sorry. I am trying to give a review in the few minutes available to me of sea fishery activities.

The deep sea trawling industry has faced severe cuts in recent years. However, because of the very great importance of this sector in the provision of table fish and the acquisition of valuable export markets for South Africa, the Government is committed to a programme aimed at rebuilding the white fish stocks. Depressed catch rates, the absence of large fish and the presence of small, immature fish were indications to us of serious overfishing. I hope that this trend has been arrested. Scientific evidence points to an improvement in both the catch rate and the size mix. My personal reaction is one of cautious optimism. That is why the quota for 1984 was only raised by 5 000 tons which, in fact, was 50% less than that recommended to me by the scientists. In allocating this increase I gave special attention to the needs of the small operators whom I consider to be a vital element in this industry in providing local outlets and local fish distributors with fish for the local market.

I should also like to say a few words on beach trek-netting. Beach trek-netting and set and drift nets have recently received careful attention. In accordance with the recommendation of the Treurnicht Commission a substantial number of permits have been withdrawn. In the case of the Strand Municipality, in consultation with that municipality all three of the trek-net licences have been withdrawn. Furthermore stricter conditions for the catching of traditional angling fish by netters have been imposed.

*I also want to say a few words about research. The research ship Afrikaner has had a very successful year. In spite of restrictions imposed by fiscal considerations, the ship was utilized to a very satisfactory extent. The time available does not allow me to elaborate on research findings, except that I should very much like to mention and to draw attention to the discovery of adult pelagic fish on the edge of the Agulhas Bank in the Mossel Bay vicinity.

The Sardinops, one of our research ships, has 25 summers behind it, and although it has given us very few problems, it is an obsolete work platform which could no longer meet modern requirements, even if it were modernized at great expense. Attention is at present being given to the replacement of this vessel by one of approximately 40 metres, and the first phase of construction will take place in the next financial year. There are many tasks, especially in waters closer to the coast, that could be performed just as effectively, but at a lower cost, by a smaller ship.

†During the past years in regard to fishing harbours there has been improvement to harbour works at Mossel Bay, Lambert’s Bay, Walvis Bay, where there has been dredging undertaken, while at Gans Bay finishing-off work and at Struis Bay a fishing harbour is planned.

*In the course of my speech, I have covered many of the points raised by several hon members, but now I want to conclude with an announcement which has a bearing on the plea made here this afternoon by the hon member for Uitenhage.

As hon members know, I have for a long time been seriously concerned about the state of some of our angling and line fish species. The steps I have taken in respect of the galjoen should be seen merely as a start, therefore. However, we are dealing here with a problem of considerable magnitude. As we all know, angling is an extremely popular sport, but the professional anglers and the constantly increasing number of semi-professional anglers concentrate on the same species. Consequently their interests often come into conflict. On the other hand, scientific knowledge of the species concerned is very limited. Research is undertaken at the Sea Fisheries Research Institute, by the institute itself and also on a contract basis, but the field is very wide. Hon members will understand, therefore, that I am sometimes forced to take preventive conservation measures even in the absence of any research results.

In the case of our national fish, galjoen, a bag limit has already been imposed, and I shall soon announce a closed season as well.

We still know relatively little about the sizes of the resources, the distribution, migratory habits, propagation, growth rate and natural death of our line fish species, and because the angling community is so large and widely distributed, little has been done to regulate this group. The allegation has been made by some people that the angling community is receiving preferential treatment in the implementation of our new policy. I am afraid I have a surprise in store for those who believe this. The onslaught made by the angler on our fishing resources must be scrutinized just as closely as that of any commercial enterprise. As a result of the onslaught on the line fish species, it is now generally recognized that certain species have been over-exploited and have to be protected. As a result of the increase in line fishing activities and especially the increase in ski boats, regulations will soon be introduced in terms of which, we hope, the safety aspect will be monitored. The wide field covered by noncommercial line fishing, the large numbers of species involved and the problems surrounding the control of this method of fishing have now made it necessary to adopt a co-ordinated approach, and with this end in view, I have requested the Marine Development Branch to establish a national marine line-fish committee at once. This committee will represent all organized line-fishing organizations and research institutes. This committee will identify the most important problems and give an indication of what should receive top priority in the near future.

The matters which should be considered by the committee, in my opinion, are, firstly, the need for the licensing of ski boats, secondly, the introduction of a permit system for the catching of line fish, and, thirdly, the best control measures, including closed seasons, closed areas, bag limits, minimum sizes and so on, research priorities and funding, the collection and processing of catch statistics and the conflict which exists between the principal line-fishing groups and the commercial industry, which has been mentioned here today. According to my own observations, the responsible line-fishing communities are ready for this step, which will have to be taken in order to ensure that each of us will still be able to catch his own little fish in future. This committee will give attention to the problem and make recommendations before the end of September. It is my intention to introduce the necessary regulations to regulate and control this popular activity before the beginning of 1985.

†We have set a list of priorities in the department. Further attention is being given to perlemoen, white fish, line fish, seaweed, oysters and black mussels as well as bait collection and distribution along the coastline, which I might say gives me serious cause for concern. Established procedures in each of these sectors are both in need of revision and adjustment. It is my personal conviction that mariculture, as the hon member for Caledon said, has not only a future in the Republic but is absolutely essential if all South African interests, both commercial and recreational, are to be served. I am quite optimistic, reviewing all the sectors of the fishing industry, that many of the dangers of over-exploitation have either been dealt with or at least identified and that, given time, we can look forward to a better managed fishing industry in the foreseeable future.

The hon member for Maitland referred to the Castillo de Bellver and the possible danger of pollution to Dassen Island and Langebaan. I want to tell the hon member that his suggestion has already been transmitted to and is in the hands of the appropriate department. We are working in close consultation not only with the Department of Transport but also with private organizations that have approached us with ways and means of combating any possible pollution that might arise from the Castillo de Bellver.

As regards Robben Island, I want to congratulate Sanccob and the hon member in particular for achieving a first in world history, namely their re-establishment of a penguin colony there which has not been in existence for the past 300 years.

I note his plea to restock Seal Island with birds. I am in full sympathy, and something will be done about it. As regards the coastal zone management report; I have already referred to that. I have also referred to the question of mari-culture, and I will look into the possibility of prawns being farmed in the neighbourhood of Koeberg. I will be going to Taiwan in the near future and will have a look at that form of farming.

As regards the chief Opposition spokesman, I have dealt with most of the matters to do with the Alant Committee report. I have also mentioned the question of the advisory committee. I disagree with him about the kreef experiment, and I will be repeating it. Whale research is a problem. Our difficulty is that we have been a member of the International Whaling Commission for a long time. We have played a very important role on that commission, but emotions have now been aroused in that commission as a result of which little notice is taken of scientific findings. Our scientists have made a great contribution to that commission, and it is indeed difficult for us, on the basis of scientific findings, to fall into line with the emotional lobby that exists in the International Whaling Commission. However, we have not taken a decision on this matter and it is being looked at in all its various aspects.

As regards the Council for the Environment and the fact that this council should have teeth, I just want to say that I dealt with this question last year. It is not supposed to be a body with teeth. The department and the Minister are supposed to have the teeth and the advisory council is supposed to advise the department and the Minister. We are very appreciative of the work that is being done by that council and we are in touch with the individual members of that council. I am afraid that I must reject the hon member’s suggestion that they should have an independent status and staff, which would just mean the duplication of work which is already being done by the department.

I have already referred to the subject of line fishing raised by the hon member for Uitenhage, but I want to thank him for his other remarks. I will give particular attention to his suggestion, which I must say makes an immediate impact on me, namely that we should consider the possibility that there should be a coastal zone of 5 km, that is 3 sea miles, within which there should be no trawling activity. I have much sympathy for that view and I certainly undertake to go into it.

*Mr Chairman, I have reacted in great detail to some hon members’ speeches, and I have also tried to report on the main aspects of the activities of the department.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

reported that the Standing Committee on Vote No 17—“Manpower”, had agreed to the Vote.

Mr Chairman, in dealing with this Bill yesterday, there was a lot of discussion on various aspects. The hon member for Pinetown raised one particular point to which I would like to refer. I think it is necessary to go into the question of whether this legislation is in conflict with the constitution and if it is not, why it should be supported.

The hon member referred to section 28 of the constitution, the section which deals with the power to appoint and discharge persons. This section clearly states that the appointment and removal of persons in the service of the Republic shall be vested in the State President unless the appointment or removal is delegated by the State President to another authority. Here we have the case where the State President delegates authority to the Commission for Administration.

An important point mentioned by the hon the Minister is that when the State President does act, he acts in terms of section 19, which states that the executive authority of the Republic in regard to own affairs is vested in the State President acting on the advice of the Minister’s Council in question and with general affairs in consultation with the Cabinet. In this Bill, the State President has assigned his powers to the Commission for Administration. Although we support the principles of this clause there are certain aspects of the clause which we do not support and in respect of which we will be moving amendments. The hon the Minister indicated that he is not prepared to accept certain of the amendments, but I hope that after we have discussed them this afternoon, he will change his mind. Meanwhile he should keep an open mind on the subject.

There is one which I will accept.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to the definition of “commission” in clause 1(ii). I wish to make it very clear once again that we on this side of the House cannot support this clause, on the basis of the objections in principle I have already stated in this regard. Four ideas come to the fore in respect of this definition and its meaning, to which we object. The first is its dismantling; secondly, that the State President will have full control over this commission with regard to the appointment and dismissal of members; thirdly, the term appointment of members of the commission, and fourthly, the possibility of the appointment of people from outside. On the basis of these objections in principle we will therefore not be supporting this clause.

Mr Chairman, I cannot understand the reasoning of the hon member for Koedoespoort. As far as we are concerned, it is very important that the State President should be accountable to Parliament. That is how we want this particular Act to operate. He shall at all times give Parliament—the Parliament which elects him—his full reasons for any action he takes in this regard.

Order! What clause is the hon member discussing?

I am discussing the definitions in Clause 1.

Mr Chairman, I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat the arguments advanced last evening in full. I find the opposition of the hon member for Koedoespoort to fundamental aspects of the legislation in respect of the commission strange in view of the fact that it has already been part of the legislation for decades. The members of the commission have been appointed on a term basis for a long time, to mention one example. The objection to their being appointed on a term basis is therefore not properly motivated, in my opinion. The success and status of the commission, which I and the hon member value highly, were achieved and established under a system in terms of which they were in fact appointed on a term basis. I therefore wish to state once again that the real amendments to established practices and procedures, surrounding the definitions as well, are not as drastic as has appeared in the debate thus far.

Clause 1 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 5, from line 13, to omit “one or more members, but not exceeding three,” and to substitute “two or three members”.
2. 2. On page 5, from line 27, to omit paragraph (a).
3. 3. On page 5, from line 33, to omit “If the Commission consists of more than one member, the” and to substitute “The”.

The hon the Minister, in his reply last night, said (Hansard, 21 May):

He went on to say:

Then he said:

I cannot understand why the hon the Minister does not provide for two members. He has made special provision in this particular clause for the designation of two heads of departments. It is merely a question of getting the State President to appoint one of the two departmental heads temporarily if the commission consists of only two members. That will ensure that there will be two members. By the inclusion of clause 2(7) he has a person readily available to act as a temporary commissioner, which will give him plenty of time to appoint a permanent commissioner. I therefore feel that it would be far better to have the commission consist of two members because of the tremendous responsibility they will have to shoulder.

My two other amendments are consequential to that.

Mr Chairman, we have no objections to the recommendations of the hon member for Bezuidenhout. However, I want to say that the objection we raised to clause 1, also applies to this clause. The hon the Minister claimed that he replied in full last evening. However, I do not think he replied at all to our whole argument in respect of the fact that the commission will consist of one to three members, that we are entering a new dispensation and that according to the hon the Minister’s own principle he should accommodate Brown people and Indians in view of the new dispensation. That is not in accordance with the principle I support. I should like to know how the hon the Minister sees the ratio of 4:2:1 in this regard, and how he wants to make provision for the other people who will be in Parliament with a view to the new dispensation.

Mr Chairman, let me, first of all, reply to the hon member for Rissik. The Commission for Administration is not a body representating communities. It is a professional body created to provide services. The size of the commission is determined, inter alia, by the workload that professional body has to cope with. Therefore, there is no question of the representation of groups on the commission. As regards the appointment of commissioners, the criteria are merit and efficiency and as regards the size of the commission the criteria are effectiveness and efficient rendering of service and decision-making. Therefore, I think that is a misplaced argument that is really not relevant in this case. We could have long discussions about representative bodies and about how one should consider certain ratios to be fixed and rigoristic. The Government and I do not endorse this. Also as far as the concept of 4:2:1 is concerned we are not as rigoristic as the hon member makes us out to be.

†As regards the amendment by the hon member for Bezuidenhout, I should just like to say that I do not see my way clear to accept the amendment. The same reasons which pertained for making this provision as supple as possible when we introduced it in February, and when the hon member and his party supported it, still pertain. I do not want to rehash all the arguments in this regard. Provision is made for the appointment of temporary commissioners. That is true, but the particular section to which the hon member referred has never been intended, and is not intended, to handle a situation over months and months. Then his complaint of last night will come into force, namely that one cannot expect it of someone to be a Director-General over a fairly long period and give that his full-time attention as well as being an active member of the commission. That provision is therefore basically intended to cover the appointment of commissioners for short periods and not for their standing in on an almost full-time basis in the place of a commissioner.

The argument which I advanced last night was merely intended to try to give the hon member a practical instance which might result in our having a commission consisting of one commissioner for a short time. In a year or two or three the situation may arise where we feel that on a permanent basis, or for a long period, we only need one commissioner, in which event I do not want to come back to Parliament to get authorization. I am just asking for pliability to be built into the legislation in this regard.

In conclusion, let me repeat what I said last night. With regard to its infrastructure of knowledge, availability, skill etc the commission has been strengthened, and will be strengthened. Therefore the task upon their shoulders has also been lightened to a great extent.

Mr Chairman, I am afraid the hon the Minister got in just one jump ahead of me because I wanted to indicate that we would be supporting the amendment moved by the hon member for Bezuidenhout. Whilst it may be conceded that through restructuring of the work being done by the commission there will be insufficient work to keep a larger commission operational at all times, it is still vital to the running of the Public Service of South Africa. Every department indicates in its report that it is experiencing a shortage of staff and training facilities. There are all sort of problems in every department of State. I cannot help but feel that whilst it may be other people’s duties to look into these various aspects—and I concede that it is—from my experience of life one has to have somebody at the top who is in a position to motivate and has the power to motivate. I honestly do believe that in view of the work he has to do— especially, according to the way in which I read clause 7, the work he is going to have to do at some time in the future if it remains in the Bill—it is going to be utterly impossible for that person to do justice to the job and to ensure the smooth running of the service. I have read in the Press who is likely to be the new head of the department and whilst I have absolute faith in the present incumbent and in the new man who will be taking over I believe it is too big a responsibility to expect him to be able to do this job adequately and to be able to provide the motivation and incentive to start filling up all the gaps that we have in the Public Service.

Mr Chairman, I wish to say a few words in connection with the amendments proposed by my colleague, the hon member for Bezuidenhout, not only from the point of view of the interests of the State but from the point of view of the interests of the individual concerned. I think we are in a position where we are going to have a Public Service in which there are going to be even more strains and stresses than there are at the present moment. The hon the Minister in his speech last night made it quite clear that one of the purposes of the commission will be to act as an appeal body to which public servants who have grievances can make final appeals. I believe that with a single commissioner we are going to find at times that certain public servants may find it justifiable to say that they have personal grievances against that one man. I believe therefore that in his interest it is better to work as a judicial tribunal with more than one person sitting. I would certainly strongly urge the hon the Minister, whatever may have happened in February, to urgently consider the possibility of not having only one member of this commission.

Mr Chairman, I have already indicated that it is not visualized in the forseeable future that we will have only one commissioner. However, should a situation arise where we have only one commissioner, and should he find that the stress upon him is unbearable and that he is incapable of handling all the decisions that he may have to take, he will surely be the first person to approach the Minister for assistance. He will point out that the Minister is entitled to appoint a commission of two, and ask for the appointment of a second member. Should the commission consist of two people and they too find it too strenuous to do all the work, they will be the first to admit to the Minister that they have made a mistake and that they are in need of a third commissioner. Can we not leave this matter in the hands of those capable top administrators to also accept the responsibility of advising the Government of the need for the extension of the number of commissioners at any given time? By accepting this clause the road is not being closed; it is still open to once again increase the commission from two to three, from one to two or from one to three. I therefore merely ask for this in-built suppleness to be retained in the clause.

*The commission is, amongst other things, in control of realizing the objective of establishing a more effective Public Service. If the commission has suggested that the commission be constituted along the lines proposed here, this means that the commission supports the legislation and that it was formulated in accordance with the commission’s inputs. In my view it is a good thing for the commission to be setting an example, and I must say that if two people can do a specific piece of work, we should not use three people to do it. Let us give the commission an opportunity to set an example here. If it finds that it has over-estimated its capabilities or has under-estimated the workload, the door is open, after all, for the commissioners to ask for the appointment of an additional commissioner. If, however, they can succeed in proving that work that has been done by three people over the years can now, in the new dispensation, be done by only two people, and if in future they were even to succeed, by way of greater efficiency, in having that work done by only one man, surely that attests to sound management, which is something that we should be encouraging rather than discouraging.

Mr Chairman, while the hon the Minister is in charge of this department, and while we have a reasonable and good State President, everything is very fine. One must view, however, what the possibility can be in five or 10 years’ time. Everybody might say it is nice to have one man in charge because he can be a benevolent dictator. However, there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator because everyone likes to maintain the position he has. Most people are jealous of maintaining the positions they have. It is therefore very important that we should have two people and that all the power should not be left in the hands of only one man. That is the whole basis of democracy that one should have more people than just one to do everything.

Mr Chairman, I do appreciate the argument that one man alone does give greater flexibility. Having been in business myself and having been the only person there to make decisions—especially since I subsequently had to work with a board—I appreciate the flexibility that one can accomplish with only one person, particularly since I, even now sometimes, have considerable difficulty in persuading the other hon members of my party to do what I want them to do. I do accept therefore that one does get greater flexibility when one has only one man. As the hon member for Bezuidenhout has indicated, this is not really the answer. I mean one can even do away with Parliament and have a dictator. One will obviously get more flexibility that way. I really do not consider that to be a valid argument at all, and I still adhere to my point that if these commissioners are going to do the job that has to be done, it is necessary that there should be more than one to take responsibility for all the decisions taken. Whether they are doing very much at the moment or not is quite irrelevant. There is work, and a lot of work, that will have to be done in connection with staff administration, especially when the new constitutional dispensation is introduced. I really do believe therefore that one should give consideration to this. Incidentally, much of what they will have to do will be quite controversial because there will be racial overtones. That we will not be able to avoid. That is after all the nature of things in South Africa. I really do believe therefore that it is most unwise to leave this purely in the hands of one person. Although there is greater flexibility—that is quite true—the onus on that person is going to be horrific, as I see it.

Mr Chairman, I should just point out that there is no question of a dictatorship at all. The powers and the duties of the commission are clearly prescribed by law. The commission cannot merely do what it likes to do. It must carry out its duties within the framework of the law, and for the very reasons advanced by the hon member. There are, however, also other provisions which stipulate that should a commissioner not perform his duties satisfactorily, the State President does need the powers then to rectify the situation. If necessary the State President should be able to rectify the situation even by dismissing a commissioner. There is therefore an inbuilt balance in this provision.

I want to give hon members the assurance that a commission—even a one-man commission—does not need anyone to be critical of its decisions. The Cabinet is checking throughout in order to establish whether it agrees with the commission or not. Furthermore we have four standing committees in which are included all the Directors-General of all the departments. Those four standing committees advise the commission on a regular basis in connection with four different aspects of government. In that manner we have formed a new interface between the Civil Service—including all the Directors-General of departments—on the one hand, and the commission on the other hand. We are not making this an autocratic system. We do retain the in-built democracy, if I may put it that way. We are only doing it in a slightly different manner.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 9, from line 3, to omit sub-paragraph (iv).
2. 2. On page 9, in line 12, after “subsection” to insert “and the reasons therefor”.
3. 3. On page 9, in line 33, to omit all the words after “have” up to and including “direct” in lines 36 and 37 and to substitute:
4. been retired in terms of section 14(4) of the Public Service Act
5. 4. On page 9, in lines 39 and 40, to omit “had so vacated his office or”.

The first amendment seeks the omission of subsection (1)(a)(iv), and the reason why we object …

Order! Hon members are not permitted to converse so loudly, and the hon member Dr Odendaal must resume his seat. The hon member for Bezuidenhout may proceed.

Sir, the reason why we object to this provision is that we do not like the words “deemed expedient” …

Order! The hon member for Hercules is not permitted to stand talking in the aisle either. The hon member for Bezuidenhout may proceed.

As I have indicated, we do not like the words “deemed expedient” because these words can cover a multitude of sins. We would rather like to see the words in section 4(10)(a)(iii) of the Public Service Act, 1957, being retained:

We would rather have those words in the Bill than the words in clause 4(l)(a)(iv) if the hon the Minister wants another reason for getting rid of a member of the commission.

The second amendment seeks the insertion of the words “and the reasons therefor” after “subsection” in clause 4(l)(b).

I accept that amendment.

I want to thank the hon the Minister for that. Those words are at the moment in the Public Service Act, 1957.

The third amendment seeks to clarify the whole situation because I think a member of the commission should not feel that his pension could be affected by a decision of the State President. The amendment seeks to provide that he will be entitled to his pension irrespective of whether he is dismissed or whether he retires. I just want to point out that this amendment appears in its correct form on today’s Order Paper. The amendment, as it appeared on yesterday’s Order Paper, was incorrect.

The fourth amendment is consequential to the first three amendments which I have moved.

Mr Chairman, do I understand the hon member for Bezuidenhout to have moved to omit subparagraph (iv) I thought that he had not moved it.

I did.

We do not believe that that is necessary, but that the word “expedient” in that subparagraph be deleted and the word “necessary” substituted. Accordingly I move the following amendment—

1. 6. In the English text, on page 9, from line 4, to omit “expedient” and to substitute “necessary”.

I think this is more in keeping with the Afrikaans text, where the word “dienstig” is used. The subparagraph would then read:

I would urge that the hon the Minister give consideration to this, because the word “expedient” in the English language smacks of doing something for the sake of convenience. It would suggest that something is being done because it is convenient to get rid of a person, or because an individual is anxious, for his own personal reasons, to get rid of a person as against getting rid of a person for legitimate reasons, namely inefficiency or whatever the legitimate reason there may be. The word “expedient” is not the sort of terminology that should be used in a situation like this. I would urge the hon the Minister to give serious consideration to the substitution for that word of the word “necessary”.

Mr Chairman, last evening I indicated to the hon the Minister that the CP could not support this clause. I should like to tell the hon the Minister—and this is something we will tell him repeatedly—that it has been our experience recently that this kind of wording is so wide, that since one is entering a new dispensation with a State President with exceptionally extraordinary powers, the State President is now also being granted the power, for example, if he does not like someone or if a particular member of the commission no longer finds favour with him due to political or other reasons, he can simply be dismissed by him. In terms of the new dispensation, the State President is going to have these extraordinary powers and we do not want to be part and parcel of the fact that if someone merely offers resistance, in whatever way, he will be in the hands of such a State President who can dismiss him summarily.

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to waste time, but I just want to say that the NRP will also be supporting the second amendment moved by the hon member for Bezuidenhout.

I am accepting it.

Oh, thank you.

Mr Chairman, I would like to refer to clause 4(l)(a)(iv), which reads:

I must speak against the amendment moved by the hon member for Umhlanga which seeks to substitute the word “necessary” for the word “expedient”. We in this party would accept his amendment if he would add after the word “necessary” the words “for reasons of efficiency or economy”. There are two ways of approaching this. Either one can approach it by examining the words “deemed expedient” or “deemed necessary”, or one can approach it by looking at the words which have been excluded. I would like to do both.

The word “expedient” is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as:

Here I agree with the view of the hon member for Umhlanga that it is not ideally used in the English language in legalistic terms. However, it was used during wartime regulations in the phrase: “The Governor-General may promulgate such regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.” They were both used interchangeably during those wartime regulations. A judge who presided over a case which arose as a result of these wartime regulations stated quite plainly:

There was no binding legal restriction on him whatsoever except as defined in the powers of the Governor-General.

One can also turn around and, if “deemed expedient” is used here, look at what has been left out. This is: “dismissal or removal from office for reasons which will promote efficiency and economy.” These are parallel with the reasons which may be used for the dismissal of any person from the Public Service. A person may be discharged from the Public Service on account of unfitness for duty or incapacity to promote efficiency or economy in the department or office in which he works. I happen to know that there have been court cases on that particular provision in which the State has been required to prove that its dismissal of a public servant had been in the interests of economy or efficiency. There has to be a legal definition of these terms. There is no legal definition of the term “deemed expedient” or the one used by the hon member for Umhlanga, namely “deemed necessary”. Anything will do and, as the hon member for Bezuidenhout has pointed out, it covers all manner of evils. There is nothing a court of law can define in the term “deemed expedient”.

What worries me is that where this phrase is being used for the highest public officer in this country, whether we will see, when the Public Service Bill finally arrives, the phrase “deemed expedient” in regard to the dismissal of public servants. I think the two go together. I therefore think “deemed expedient” or “deemed necessary” in this case should be removed and be replaced by the original provision.

Mr Chairman, I shall accept this second amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenhout in regard to reasons that have to be furnished.

I cannot accept the first amendments of the hon member for Bezuidenhout, viz on page 9, from line 3 to omit subparagraph 4. Hon members will remember—in fact, the hon member himself mentioned this—that this additional reason has always been there. As he quoted correctly, in the past the relevant words were:

I think that this additional reason is necessary because it attempts to indicate another area in addition to the other reasons mentioned. I, too, do not like the words “dienstig ag”, or “deemed expedient”.

I have a prepared amendment here. I listened carefully to the hon member for Umhlanga and I think that I should in fact move my amendment because I am sure that it will satisfy hon members. I want to use the old wording except that I do not want to use the word “economy” again. The reason for this is that in my opinion the word is not really an appropriate one to use in connection with the commission. A special provision has been inserted that because the commission may now consist of a fluctuating number of members, this fluctuation can only take place when a vacancy occurs. For this reason I think the word “economy” is not appropriate here and I accordingly move the following amendment:

1. 5. On page 9, from line 4, to omit “is deemed expedient by the State President” and to substitute “will promote efficiency”.

I am convinced that in view of this, hon members will withdraw their amendments in this regard.

†As regards the third and fourth amendments moved by the hon member for Bezuidenhout, I do not agree with him. I accept his bona fides and his purpose, but I do not think his amendment will really attain the goal which he has stated. I can assure him that these particular provisions have been carefully worded to ensure that the pension rights of a member of the commission leaving the commission will be properly looked after to his full benefit.

Mr Chairman, in the light of the amendment moved by the hon the Minister, which I accept, I wish, with the leave of the Committee, to withdraw my first, third and fourth amendments.

Amendments 1, 3 and 4, with leave, withdrawn.

I put the remaining amendments.

Mr Chairman, while I can accept the Afrikaans version of the amendment to clause 4, I still do not understand what the English text will be, because it cannot be translated directly.

Order! I have already put the amendments. I put the question and no hon member indicated that he wanted to address the Chair. I cannot allow the hon member for Umbilo to make a speech now.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendment 5 agreed to and amendment 6 dropped.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 5:

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

1. 1. On page 11, in line 11, to omit “not present” and to substitute: Present to perform his duties It is an improvement on the text.

Mr Chairman, I do not understand the reasons for the hon the Minister moving his amendment and I would really like him to explain it to me. The present wording of the clause is as follows:

As far as I understood it, that meant that, if there were, say, two commissioners and one was away, all that was needed was that a round robin be sent which the other member merely has to sign indicating that he is in agreement with it, the chairman signs it indicating that he is in agreement with it and then it is agreed to. The wording as proposed is very cumbersome. It is also repetitive, because it reads:

That is one and the same thing. I therefore do not understand why the hon the Minister has to amend this at all. Surely, he must have two systems, one in respect of the meeting and one in respect of obtaining signatures, because that is what one will require. Any board or organization need not necessarily call a board meeting on every occasion. I think that the hon the Minister should really consider wording this differently and allowing for both types of decision-making.

Mr Chairman, I share the standpoint of the hon member for Bezuidenhout in respect of the amendment of the hon the Minister. I was of the opinion that the initial clause meant that when a member of the commission was absent from a meeting of the commission he would have had the opportunity to present his standpoint at that meeting in writing so that the commission could take cognizance of his standpoint. Since an absent member is now being deprived of that opportunity, he will not be able to make a contribution to the matter the commission is discussing at all. If he is present in person, surely he can put his case verbally and then he need not do so in writing.

Mr Chairman, I think we should refer to the previous provision in this regard. Section 5(1) of the existing Public Service Act reads as follows:

Therefore, the intention in the new clause is that everyone who is at the office and amongst whom documents circulate must be able to decide. Where matters have been delegated to members of the Commission, a member can decide on his own. The Act was amended to make it possible at all times for at least two members of the Commission to decide on an undelegated matter if the Commission consists of more than one member. The need for one member of the Commission to decide if the other member is absent has lapsed, due to the automatic availability of the acting member of the Commission i‘ terms of clause 2(7). Paragraph (b) with which we are dealing with now, sets out the procedure in terms of which the commission has to decide on a matter. There is nothing sinister about that and consequently, I ask hon members to accept it as such.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 6 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 7:

Mr Chairman, in the Second Reading I indicated that we in these benches believe that this clause materially extends the functions of the commission so that under appropriate circumstances they could become involved in local government affairs, and they could extend their activities considerably beyond their present activities as far as provincial affairs are concerned. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has indicated in his reply that clause 7(2) is identical to the stipulation that has existed in the legislation that is being changed. I am sorry but I have gone right through that legislation and I cannot find any identical provision.

The hon the Minister also indicated that the commission did not have the power to generate its own work and that it has to be motivated by the State President or the appropriate Minister. This is of course true. He indicated that the time for objecting to this, if I were objecting on the basis of getting involved in local government, would be when there was an appointment of a Minister of Local Government. From the discussions I have had over a considerable time, it is very clear that local government is going to be handled from Pretoria and that there is going to be a Minister of Local Government. In my opinion there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about that. If that means that I can only object to this clause when there is a Minister of Local Government, that sounds to me a little fatuous because the clause will have already been passed and I cannot months or even years later oppose something which has already been approved. I find this to be a rather unusual approach.

The hon the Minister indicated himself that our fear could in fact be justified if there were a Minister of Local Government. He said (Hansard, 21st May 1984):

at some time in the future. That is roughly what he said.

I just cannot help but feel that we are missing out on an opportunity of putting the matter right at this stage. If there is no intention whatsoever of getting involved in local government, then I believe the fears of getting involved in local government should be removed. As I said earlier, the future of middle tier government has not been finalized and yet, if an appropriate Minister is appointed in the new constitutional set-up, this Bill will clearly extend his activities to cover those fields. As a consequence, therefore, I should like to move the following amendments:

1. 1. On page 13, from line 33, to omit all the words after “of” to the end of the subsection and to substitute:
   employment, remuneration, and other conditions of service.
2. 2. On page 13, from line 46, to omit all the words after “persons” up to and including the third “of” in line 49.

Mr Chairman, before I react to the hon member I, too, should like to move an amendment. As I said in my Second Reading speech, clause 7, as it now reads, will not be applicable to the SA Transport Services and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. However, we have reconsidered it and to remove all doubts about it, I move the following amendment:

• 3. On page 15, after line 10, to insert:
• (5) The provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications or the South African Transport Services.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umbilo said that he could not find a similar provision in the existing legislation. Unfortunately I only have the Afrikaans text with me, but section 6(4) of the Public Service Act reads:

this has obviously been substituted by other legislation:

It is almost exactly the same as clause 7(2). The gist of it is exactly the same.

[Inaudible.]

No, we can go through that again. However, let me quote clause 7(2), in which the only difference is that mention is made here of the State President and no longer of the Governor General. I quote clause 7(2) as follows:

It is clear, Mr Chairman, that there is in essence no difference between the wording of this clause and the section of the Act which I quoted earlier. Therefore no new power is granted. Clause 7(3), however, is entirely new in its contents. It provides for a softer option in that when the State President or a Minister of State requires advice in connection with a body being one of the departments not mentioned in clause 7(2), that is made possible in terms of clause 7(3).

My reply to the hon member therefore remains the same. That is that the scope of the powers of the commission in this regard is limited by the fact that, in terms of clause 7(2) and (3), they can only exercise these powers and these functions given to them in terms of these two subsections if there is also an Act of this Parliament in terms of which a Minister is authorized to exercise those very functions and powers. They can only take these over from a Minister. The Act of Parliament in terms of which a Minister of State is authorized to exercise certain powers or to perform certain functions is also the basis and the origin of such powers and functions, and not these two subsections. These two subsections merely allow a Minister or the State President, instead of doing it themselves, to empower the commission to perform certain functions and exercise certain powers. The hon member’s objection to the commission having too wide powers in terms of these two subsections, I submit, should be addressed to legislation in terms of which powers are granted to Ministers instead of it being levelled against these two subsections, which are merely of a procedural nature in that they authorize a Minister or the Cabinet to delegate to the commission a function or a power which the said Minister already has.

Mr Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the hon the Minister. In terms of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, the State President may appoint Ministers and delegate to them such duties as he believes are necessary and desirable. The duties of the Minister are not going to be debated in Parliament. This is the point I am making. That Minister will become a Minister and will be given his functions to perform. That will be done by the State President and the whole process will therefore by-pass Parliament. As a consequence of that, once this has been done, there will be nothing to stop the appointed Minister to delegate this work to the commission. This is the gravamen of my argument.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House also have the same misgivings as the hon member for Umbilo. We think it could be met very simply by way of an amendment, which, I hope the hon the Minister will accept. I suggest that wherever mention is made in this clause of councils, it should be stipulated clearly that local authorities are excluded. If we did that we would know exactly that when referring to councils we were excluding town councils, city councils and other local authorities. That means that it will then only have reference to other councils. I believe that an amendment of that nature will meet the objection raised by the hon member for Umbilo.

Accordingly, Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment:

1. 4. Wherever “council” occurs, to add “excluding local authorities”.

Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to accept either that amendment or the amendments moved by the hon member for Umbilo. I just want to reiterate that only powers under any law conferred upon, entrusted to or imposed upon a Minister are affected here. The operative words are “under any law”. The hon member for Umbilo is afraid that the State President may just inform a Minister that he has that power. However, this provision states specifically that it only applies to powers, functions and duties imposed by a law, and a law is a law. It is not a decree by the State President, it is not a ministerial decision and it is not a regulation. It is a law and all laws are passed by Parliament. Therefore, in the future, the hon member will have the opportunity to oppose any such provision in any law if he is still here. In regard to the laws already on our Statute Book, the hon member will just have to live with them because they have already been passed by Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to quote section 24(1) of the Constitution Act to the hon the Minister. It reads as follows:

This states quite clearly that the State President can tell a Minister what he wants him to do, including taking over local government, and it does not have to come to this House if a Minister is so instructed. That is the point I have been trying to make. Whilst I accept the fact that it is normal for this sort of thing to happen under a new constitution where different race groups are involved in different Houses, it may well cause a great deal of trouble.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umbilo has not convinced me. The section of the constitution that he has just quoted does not give the State President power to make a law setting out the powers, functions and duties of such a Minister. The clause under discussion at the moment only applies to powers, functions and duties as are under any law conferred or imposed upon a Minister. Words mean what they say, and in terms of South African law one has basically to give a literal interpretation to the words contained in legislation. “Under any law” means exactly what it says. I want to give the hon member that assurance. It does not include powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed upon a particular Minister in terms of a decision by the State President. This clause will not apply in such a case.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 22.