Mr. Speaker, with your leave I should like to make a statement on principles of policy concerning banking and insurance on which the Cabinet has decided in connection with recommendations by the Commission of Inquiry into Fiscal and Monetary Policy in South Africa, the so-called Franzsen Commission.

In its Third Report (R.P. 87/1970) the Commission of Inquiry into Fiscal and Monetary Policy in South Africa recommended that (1) excessive concentration of bank shares in the hands of one or more large shareholders should be restricted and (2) loans of a bank to persons controlling it and to its subsidiaries should be subject to limits.

After the publication of the Report I invited the financial institutions and the various national bodies concerned to submit written comments on the Commission’s proposals. I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to these organizations for their kind co-operation.

The Cabinet’s decisions in regard to this matter are as follows:

Secondly, banks find themselves in a position of trust vis-à-vis the Government because the official monetary policy and exchange control regulations have to be carried out by means of the private banking system. Banks therefore engage in a business which is subject to Government action in the public interest.

Existing shareholdings in South African banks of foreign banks: Shareholdings of more than 50%:

In terms of the Banks Act every locally-registered bank has to maintain the aforementioned capital and reserve ratio of 6% against its liabilities. This means that foreign-controlled banks are obliged to supplement their capital to keep pace with the future growth of their deposits. If these additional issues are made to South African residents only, this will automatically reduce in a gradual manner the percentage share of foreign shareholding in the total. Because this would require considerable time, further measures have been decided upon.

Each of the foreign-controlled banks or bank holding companies (if the shares in a bank are held by a bank holding company) concerned will have to work out, in consultation with the Minister, a scheme to reduce within a reasonable period, say ten years, the foreign shareholding to 50%. It stands to reason that this programme will have to be carried out with the necessary flexibility.

The acquisition of existing shares from foreigners will reduce the Republic’s holdings of foreign exchange. The extent to which the authorities will be able to allow the use of this method, therefore, will depend on the level of the foreign reserves and on balance of payments developments. This matter, however, can be dealt with in an appropriate manner by the Reserve Bank’s exchange control administration.

Conditions prevailing on the local Stock Exchange will also have to be reckoned with. Because the price of bank shares may be affected adversely if a considerable number of shares were to change hands, the local investment climate will have to be kept in mind constantly.

Furthermore, it has been decided that foreign control over a South African bank has to be diminished with the transfer of shares to South Africans. Representation of South African shareholders on the board of directors and hence their participation in the bank’s management, will be effected by means of a provision to the effect that for each full 10%, as well as for each portion of 10% in excess of one-half, of the total number of voting shares issued held by South African shareholders, the latter will be entitled to appoint one-tenth of the board of directors.

When the 50% limit has been reached within a reasonable period of time, a foreign-controlled bank will have to continue to make further issues only to South African residents until the percentage of foreign shareholding in the total has been reduced to 10%.

Shareholdings of more than 10% and less than 50%:

An existing foreign shareholding of more than 10% and less than 50% in a South African bank may not be increased. When the bank concerned requires additional capital and further shares have to be issued, these will have to be issued to South African residents. Representation on the board must be adjusted accordingly.

New foreign shareholdings in new or existing South African banks:

As regards future foreign shareholdings in South African banks, foreigners will have to comply with a 10% limit on the shareholding of a person and his associates.

The total holding of voting shares of all non-residents in a South African bank will be limited to 15% of the total of such shares in the bank.

A few local banks have made representations to the effect that they could expand their foreign connections by giving overseas banks a share interest in the local banks. It has been decided that in such cases the principle of reciprocity has to be observed, that is, if an overseas bank acquires a shareholding not exceeding 10% in a local bank, the latter should be allowed to acquire an investment of a corresponding amount in the shares of the overseas bank concerned. No loss of foreign exchange would be involved in such a case.

Shares held by nominees:

In order to apply the proposed limitations on the shareholding in a bank effectively, it is necessary that the residential status of shareholders be known. The Banks Act, therefore, will have to be amended to prohibit the holding of bank shares by nominees or to require banks to keep available a list of the actual shareholders and submit this list to the Registrar of Banks and the bank’s auditors.

Agencies of foreign banks:

It stands to reason that foreign banks should be allowed, as is the custom in Australia and many other countries, to establish agencies or representative offices in South Africa to promote mutual trade and the flow of capital. Such agencies, however, will not be allowed to accept deposits.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

At the Second Reading we indicated that we regarded this Bill as an excellent one and as one which should be passed. We accepted the principles of this Bill and the Bill therefore has our full support, as has the new plan proposed for the Board of Control of the “Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal”. But in clause 17 there is something which in my opinion does not really have anything to do with the principles of the Bill. I quote—

In other words, here the authors or compilers of the Dictionary are being indemnified against legal proceedings. I accept that such legal proceedings would comprise chiefly defamation actions which could be instituted with regard to the definition of certain words which could lead to a person or a group feeling that it had been defamed. Our standpoint on this side is that we do not regard clause 17 as being so necessary that it should appear in the Bill. We believe that our Dictionary, which is a fine and noble thing, should also be such that it can stand on its own without any special legal protection and that it should be subject only to the ordinary law of South Africa. Our Publications Board legislation provides that one may not defame a group or person, nor may one say or do anything which could cause discord between various groups in South Africa. Now, if we have that concept in our law, and we feel that that is necessary, then it should most certainly be possible for our “Afrikaanse Woordeboek”, too, to comply with that. People can be defamed. It is very unusual. It does occur that a person’s name can eventually become a dictionary word, a language word. In the English dictionary we have the words “boycott” and “bowdlerize”. These are not defamatory words, but I mention them to show that names of people eventually become accepted words in the language, and it may happen that the compilers, unwittingly, and perhaps through not being careful enough, may allow such a word to slip in and that a certain person may be defamed thereby.

The major difficulty is when it is a matter of the defamation of a group, when a group of people are defamed, and particular in South Africa where we have definitive relations between the racial groups, I think that we should be doubly careful in regard to a matter such as this. For example there is the word “Boer”. In the English Oxford Dictionary as well as in other English dictionaries, the word “Boer” is often defined together with the word “boor”. In this way this word has acquired a pejorative and insulting meaning which, if it were to be so defined in South Africa, would in my opinion be totally unnecessary. In Afrikaans, too, the word “Boer” sometimes has a bad connotation, but fortunately the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal does not give that bad connotation, but gives a simple definition, namely that the word “Boer” is a term applied to a member of the Afrikaans nation. That is in order and there is no objection to that.

Let us take another word which has caused difficulty and which has even led to a court case in England. I think that this is what the hon. the Minister had in mind when he said in the Second Reading debate that this provision had been included in view of possible legal proceedings concerning definitions which could be regarded as the defamation of a group. I refer to the word “Jood” or “Jew”. In the English Oxford Dictionary a definition of this word appears which in my opinion is unnecessarily offensive, namely “applying to a grasping or an extortionate usurer”. So, too, there are other definitions of this word which in my opinion are unnecessarily offensive. In the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal there are other definitions of this word which in my opinion should really not be there and which give no additional value to the dictionary. For example, the word is defined as “ ’n suinige, geslepe, uitgeslape sakeman” (a miserly, sly, shrewd businessman). There is also the following definition, “Uitdrukking: so astrant soos ’n Jood” (Expression: as cheeky as a Jew). There is even the following expression, “Die Jood betaal” (Pay the Jew). That is defined as “om jou te ontlas” (to obey the call of nature). I believe that these definitions are not necessary in out dictionary. I do not believe that our dictionary should be protected by legislation in connection with phrases of that kind, which have perhaps not slipped in intentionally, and which should be omitted in the course of a future revision. They hurt unnecessarily; they are unnecessarily offensive. Nor do they really form part of our idiom or way of speech. One could just as well say, instead of what appears in the dictionary, i.e. “Hy lieg erger as ’n Jood” (He lies worse than a Jew) “Hy lieg erger as ’n Sap (He lies worse than a supporter of the United Party) or “Hy lieg erger as ’n Nat” (He lies worse than a supporter of the Nationalist Party). [Interjections.] No, I referred to both sides, I am very fair about this. Neither of those two expressions really forms part of our idiom to the extent that they may be regarded as part of the meaning of the word “Sap” or “Nat”. I think that here we have an instance of the defamation of a group. Perhaps it is not quite so serious as to be termed group defamation, but it certainly is offensive to a group. Just as the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal is not offensive to any group in its definitions of the words “Boer”, “Afrikaner” and “Engelsman”, I do not think that it should be insulting to any group in regard to its definitions of the word “Jood”.

I realize that compilers of dictionaries are faced with basic problems. There is the question of the semantic deterioration of words, as the hon. the Minister termed it. It may happen that within the next ten to twenty years the word “apartheid” will undergo a semantic deterioration and that it will then have so sordid a definition that even we would object if such a definition were to appear in a dictionary.

The four-letter words of the English language have been kept out of the English Oxford Dictionary for eighty or ninety years. It is therefore not necessary to say that all words in a language need necessarily appear in a particular dictionary. There are expressions such as those foul, blasphemous expressions which came to light through the investigation into Wilgespruit. One would never, for example, employ those phrases as a new definition of the Almighty. Surely, one cannot do something like this in an English or an Afrikaans dictionary. Therefore I think that this particular clause is not necessary. Die Afrikaanse Woordeboek is the proud foundation of our language. Our language can hold its own against any other language in the world, and although it can be reviled, no one can destroy it. Similarly it can proudly look the law squarely in the eyes, like any member on either side of the House, and it must be able to test itself in the free courts of the land like any citizen of this country or like any publication in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I could not quite grasp the reasoning of the hon. member for Orange Grove. I would have been able to grasp it if he owed his leader in the Transvaal a great debt of loyalty, but we in South Africa do not in any event attach such connotations to these words as does the Oxford English Dictionary. How can one expect of the compiler of a dictionary who must serve a language in an unbiased and objective manner and who must reproduce every possible definition of a particular word or expression, to keep the faw in mind constantly so as to avoid exposing himself to prosecution? Surely this is a total and absolute impossibility. It is so easy to fall into a trap with our present-day terminology and unwittingly become entangled in all kinds of ideologies for which words and meanings must be supplied. If any person were to be prejudiced, it would occur unwittingly and unintentionally. No personal injury will be intended when an academician sits in his office and considers every possible explanatory meaning of a particular word or expression. He compiles these in the interests of the language, of the people who speak the language and in the interests of the country in which the language is spoken. I am simply unable to see how a legislative measure such as this could be drafted without this protection being afforded. Prosecutions have already been instituted against compilers of dictionaries in other countries when people felt that explanations which reflected on their honesty had been recorded. I believe that the hon. member for Orange Grove has very poor grounds for argument in this regard. He put forward a very weak standpoint in order to advance these arguments again. What is more, he used no significant argument capable of supporting his standpoint. I believe that it is an absolute principle that the academic sitting in his office defining words, etc., should be exempted from all possible consequences.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Algoa has said, proves that the compilers of the Woordeboek need not fear that unnecessary defamation actions will be instituted against them, because they have a natural built-in defence, and that is the fact that they are trying to compile an objective work and they are not intentionally trying to do anything wrong. If anyone were to institute legal proceedings against them, they would have a natural defence. However, the point at issue is the extent to which one should deprive someone in a country who feels that he has been aggrieved, of the right to institute legal proceedings and to try to prove that he has been aggrieved. In the second place I want to say that if we act on the supposition, as I am sure both sides of this House do, that this legislation is necessary for the promotion of the functions of the Afrikaanse Woordeboek the retention of clause 17 will give us the mistaken impression that we are promoting them. I shall tell you why this is so. In the first place the value of any dictionary is to be found in its validity, in its value as a reference work. As soon as the validity of a meaning or a definition is queried, this is detrimental to the value of that reference book and one develops a feeling of, “Well, this is what the dictionary says, but is it in fact correct?” I think that that is the last thing that we would like to see happening with regard to the Afrikaanse Woordeboek. I am not impressed by the arguments that there might have been defamation actions or criminal proceedings in overseas countries and that it was unnecessary to institute these defamation actions. What can be feared from criminal proceedings? The dictionary as such could only profit by such proceedings. To try to prevent criminal proceedings being instituted will only result in there always being doubt as to the validity of the specific definition. I think that it would be far better to jump at the opportunity and to prove that what one is saying is in fact something which is acceptable to the people; that it is something which is in common use. I think that any person has more respect for a person who says: “I say this; I believe that it is true and I can prove that it is true”. As this clause reads now, the dictionary will not be placed in such a position. I am sure that the Minister believes in justice. So, I believe, do the compilers. As the Legislature of the country—and this is where the real difference comes in—we must decide, when someone has been aggrieved, whether we are going to prevent the aggrieved person from trying to defend himself in this regard. That, I fear, is the practical effect this specific clause will have. It would harm the dictionary as such; it would create unnecessary suspicion against the dictionary and its validity would be affected thereby. We believe that this would not be conducive to the interests of the dictionary as such in South Africa.

To conclude I just want to say that I accept that no one is infallible. There is no such thing as an infallible person. Although one has the greatest respect for the compilers of the dictionary, it is possible that they may make mistakes. If criminal proceedings were to be instituted against them, they could always prove that it did not constitute an intentional defamation and they would therefore have a natural defence in any event. I therefore believe that as far as this clause is concerned, the hon. the Minister may just as well agree with us that it is unnecessary for it to appear in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the argument of the two hon. members opposite who have dealt with this clause, is really extremely weak. One cannot really follow the drift of the argument. By opposing this clause, they are introducing a discordant note into this whole debate which passed off so harmoniously at the Second Reading. The hon. member spoke about meanings in common usage. That is really not what this dictionary stands for. It is not concerned with expression and words in common usage alone. What it envisages is in fact the recording of regional words, regional expressions and regional idioms. That is why it is an Afrikaanse Woordeboek. There is therefore no question of “in common usage”. I think that if they want to impose restrictions or delete this clause, it would mean that we would be restricting the academics, scientifically trained persons, in whom we have real confidence. It would detract from the value of this dictionary. For that reason I believe that the hon. the Minister should pay no attention to the arguments of the two hon. members.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Orange Grove indicated that he was not happy about this clause. I can therefore quite understand the hon. member having raised it today. Already in my reply to the Second Reading debate I tried to give an explanation of this matter, but that apparently failed to contribute towards the hon. member changing his standpoint and I therefore want to come back to a few of these points.

In the first place I want to emphasize that the task of the compiler of a dictionary is to record and define, in so far as it is not self-explanatory, that which is living and is current in the language of the people at the time of his compiling the dictionary, except that which is improper and indecent. That is the task of the compiler of a dictionary. In other words, the work done in this regard is of a highly scientific nature. I also want to stress that the compiler of a dictionary must do this within the framework of the broader language context. When we talk about Afrikaans, I would say that the compiler of a dictionary would also have to take account of the wider Medieval Dutch context and even of the Germanic context. In other words, it is important for the compiler of an Afrikaans dictionary to take into account also words and expressions current in related languages so as to determine in that way to what extent they have survived in the language of the people. This is an extremely technical task. In my Second Reading speech I referred to certain problems arising from this. I referred in the first place to the linguistic phenomenon of semantic deterioration, or let me rather say semantic obsolescence as an initial process, followed by semantic deterioration. In other words, the meaning of something which is current in the language of the people at the time it is recorded and defined, eventually becomes obsolete and eventually deteriorates and ultimately the time arrives when it has to be removed from the dictionary. Now the problem with a dictionary of this kind is that one can only remove it …

Could you give us an example?

I cannot think of an example at the moment, but this is a commonly accepted concept in linguistics. For example, I could mention the case of the word “queen”. The meaning of this word has undergone an improvement through the centuries. Originally, in Middle High German and in the days of Chaucer, too, the meaning of this word reflected very unfavourably on the person to whom it was made applicable. Since then, however, the word has undergone an improvement in meaning. The point I want to make, is that the meaning of a word or an expression defined in a dictionary at a given time can become obsolete and deteriorate to such an extent that eventually it is necessary to remove it from the dictionary. This one can only do when a new and revised edition of that dictionary is printed. On the other hand, as I have already mentioned, there is the phenomenon of semantic improvement, of a word which was omitted at a given time for reasons which were valid at that time, which word may subsequently be recorded because of a change in circumstances. A very important consideration as far as the compiler of a dictionary is concerned, is that his dictionary must be complete. It must be as complete as possible and must reflect all words requiring definition, words living in the language of the people which are proper and decent and which attest to common decency.

Having said this, I want to come to the arguments which have been raised here. The hon. member for Durban Central said that the value of a dictionary was to be found in its validity. I want to agree with him; that is quite correct. However, I want to say to him that I could advance the same argument in favour of this clause, as he advanced against it, because for the very reason that the compiler of a dictionary is intent upon giving a valid definition, he must be complete and he must record what is living in the language of the people. Consequently it is essential for him to include certain words and expression in that dictionary. For that reason I do not think the hon. member need be concerned that the inclusion of this clause will prejudice the validity of the dictionary to any extent. I should like to give the committee the assurance that the people who are working on the dictionary, are scientists of the highest calibre; it will be seen to that this will remain the case, because a dictionary cannot be compiled by just anyone. For this task one needs really hand-picked and highly qualified scientists. I can give the committee the assurance that there is not the slightest intention of indemnifying these compilers by means of this clause and of enabling them to go ahead recklessly recording words and giving definitions which will give people offence.

If a word which appears in the dictionary, in respect of which the compiler enjoys protection, is used by you as a member of the public, could you be charged with defamation?

All individuals, with the exception of the hon. members of this House who speak here under privileged circumstances, do not, of course, have that protection outside. But the fact of the matter is that here one is dealing with people who must perform this task and who would be able to perform it much more effectively if the sword of prosecution was not continually hanging over their heads. The hon. member for Durban Central also said that if a court case was instituted against the compiler of a dictionary, he must be able to prove that when he recorded the word in the dictionary, he had every right to do so. That is correct and I am convinced that that could be proved. But we must also have regard to the fact that such court cases involve tremendous expense and can put a tremendous burden on people. But apart from the financial implications, I think that the heaviest burden we would be imposing on these people would be the fact that they would not have the peace of mind necessary for a scientist to do his work properly.

With these few remarks I think I have replied to the misgivings which have been expressed. I want to emphasize again that there is not the slightest intention of giving a free hand to the compilers of the dictionary to hurt people mercilessly and to say offensive things about other population groups or persons. They have an important task which must be performed scientifically. This measure is a means of protection which is being regarded as imperative.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The principle contained in this clause is very limited. I therefore call upon hon. members to use fresh arguments.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that the main reason for this side of the House opposing this clause is experiences of the past. It is what has appeared in other dictionaries that makes us feel so perturbed as to what may happen— I say “may” happen—in any future dictionary that may be published in this country. Nobody will deny the sincerity of the compilers of this dictionary. But would it do any harm, Sir, if we were to put in a brake or a check to make sure that these people who are compiling the dictionary should take particular heed not to upset any person or groups of persons?

Order! That argument has been put forward already. The hon. member must advance fresh arguments now.

Yes, I understand, Sir, but what harm can be done by agreeing to our request? Nothing at all. What we will do, however, if we exclude this clause, is to give the assurance to those people who may be perturbed by events of the past, that they will not have to suffer in future what some have suffered. It is as simple as that. It has come about because of what has happened, and for that reason I ask this House to side with us and not to press for the inclusion of this clause in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister replied to part of my question, but to me this is an important question. As I understand this clause, it means that if the compiler of the dictionary were to include a word or a definition which could lead to a defamation action, the compiler of the dictionary would be protected. That is how I interpret the clause.

That is correct.

The hon. the Minister says I am correct. Now the following question occurs to me: What is the position when such a word is included and the compiler of the dictionary is protected while I, as a member of the public, am not protected? When I use the word, would I be subject to a defamation action. If so, that means only one thing, i.e. that this word is wrong; it is not a word in common usage, and it should not appear there. [Interjections.] Sir, that word should not appear there otherwise I should be afforded protection. I may tell you, Sir, that I have difficulty in finding examples. If the hon. member could give me an example, I would be only too glad to resume my seat. But until such time as he can satisfy me in regard to this simple question, my point remains. I am seeking examples to support the hon. the Minister’s argument, but I do not find them.

Furnish us with examples.

I do not have any; that is precisely my problem. It is because I cannot find a valid example that I say that the hon. the Minister is proposing a clause here which really carries no weight, and ought therefore not to be in this Bill. If he could give me a valid example, then he would have an argument, but I am still looking for one. Until such time as I can find a word which I as an Afrikaans-speaking person will know is a valid word, one must say that this clause is not necessary. To me the matter seems a simple one.

But, Sir, there is a second point I want to raise. I am an ordinary student of the Afrikaans language. I come across a word; I come across it in the dictionary which has been compiled by experts. I am not aware of the fact that the compiler of the dictionary is protected by law. In my ignorance I use the word. Then I find myself being threatened by a defamation action. What becomes of me then? Would it then be an excuse to say that I found the word in the dictionary? Could I use that as a defence? To me it does not seem as if it could be right. I therefore do not think this clause is necessary; I shall oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, on the one hand it is very difficult to understand the arguments advanced by the hon. members: on the other hand it is possible, without their saying so, to see in which direction they want to go. The hon. member for Maitland has just said that it could happen that a word appearing in this dictionary could result in a defamation action if it were used. I want to say to the hon. member that he can consult any dictionary, and he will find the words “thief” and “scoundrel” there. If I were to stand up in public and say that “Mr. John No One” is a thief, then “Mr. John No One” could in fact institute a defamation action against me. What hon. members opposite do not understand, Sir, is that we are dealing here with a group of responsible scientists who are only going to start work tomorrow. They have been dealing with this for years in South Africa; they are people who have been dealing with dictionaries for a very long time, and who have even set an example in South Africa and to other parts of the world. All that is happening now, Sir, is that one is going to afford these people who, with their sober and scientific and objective approach are going to give us a valuable dictionary, some protection against people from outside who seek to create trouble unnecessarily. If hon. members opposite had come along with something of a reconciliatory nature in the Act by means of which one could also have protected these people against malicious people outside, I would have appreciated the reasonableness of their arguments, but the one-sidedness with which they put their case, does not correspond with the apparent freedom and scientific approach and all the things that side of the House raises such a hue and cry about.

I think hon. members opposite are now merely trying to place a hindrance in the way of the compilers of the Afrikaanse Woordeboek to prevent them from recording in that Dictionary certain words, together with the necessary definitions, which have become part of the language of our people. The hon. member for Maitland asked here for examples. I am going to furnish him with a few now. For example there is the word “hanskakie” (renegade). This has become part of the Afrikaans language. I do not know whether there are people who would feel guilty if a “hanskakie” were to be described as someone dating from the time of the Second War of Independence. If such a person were to be described as a “hanskakie”, together with the necessary definition—for example the way in which he deserted his own people and crossed over to the enemy side—are there any people who would, feel guilty about that? We also have the word “hensopper” (hands-upper) which has become a word in its own right. After all, we know them. May I quote you another typical example, Sir? I do not want to say that this is true or that there may be hon. members opposite who could institute a defamation action. This is the word “kakieridder” (“khaki knight”), which we had during the last war.

Sir, I think it is essential for us to have the true definition of those words, and if there are any people who feel themselves exposed to defamation, it is only those people who have a guilty conscience.

Sir, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, referred to certain words which may have an unfavourable meaning, but before defamation action could ever be instituted, it must of course refer to a particular person, and in whatever way the Woordeboek defines the word “hanskakie” (renegade), it could under no circumstances lead to a defamation action. If one person were to call another person a certain name, defamation action could perhaps flow from that. The trouble I am having with this particular clause, is to understand why it appears in the Bill at all. I am sure that this is an outstanding Woordeboek and that it will comply with the highest requirements which could be set for any dictionary in the world, and one of those requirements is certainly not that it should do people irrevocable harm. It is simply common sense that the compilers of this dictionary should observe civilized standards in the processing of the dictionary, and I have no doubt that this will be the case. I would very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister what the particular instances are which he perhaps envisages. We must also take note of the fact that this provision is of retrospective effect. What is it that has already happened which has made it necessary for this provision to be of retrospective effect? That is what I cannot understand. If one knows what the particular difficulty is, then one could perhaps adopt a different attitude in respect of the retrospective nature of the provision. But simply to come along out of the blue with a clause which is contrary to our whole Roman-Dutch Law, I find astonishing. That is our attitude on this side of the House.

I promised the hon. member for Maitland that I would get examples of semantic deterioration. I want to quote the word “kaffir” to him. When we, who are sitting in this hon. House, were still young, “Kaffir” had no other meaning than a reference to a Black man. We know what has happened to the meaning of that word in the course of time, and today we try to avoid it. We have even tried to do so in our legislation. We no longer refer to “Kaffir beer”, but to “Bantu beer”. I do not know whether that was the consideration when we changed “Kaffircorn” to “grain sorghum”, but this is a good example of semantic deterioration. I also want to mention to you a word which we still remember well from the war years, “Quisling”.

But it is no longer used.

But one still expects a compiler of a dictionary to define the word. It may have fallen into disuse, and eventually it may disappear from the dictionary completely, but other words appear to have greater viability. I want to return to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Maitland. He objects to the fact that the compiler of the dictionary is protected by this clause, but that a member of the public who uses a word appearing in that dictionary, may be subject to prosecution; he is not exempted from prosecution. That is quite correct, but I want to tell the hon. member that it is not always the word per se, or the expression per se, one uses which makes one liable to prosecution. There are many contributory factors. There are attendant circumstances. For example there is the intonation with which one says it and there is the context in which one uses a particular word and applies it to a person. All these things pertain to the mere word. The function of the dictionary is to furnish the definition of a word which is commonly used. It offers no exemption to any member of the public to use that word inconsiderately in public. For that reason the individual must keep a watch on what he says. Now the hon. member for Pinelands asks me what particular cases I have in mind. I want to be honest and tell the hon. member that I have no particular case in mind. All I have in mind, is the example of what has happened in other countries, viz. England and Holland, and that I regard it as well within the bounds of possibility that we could have the same experience in this country. I sympathize with the standpoint adopted here by the hon. member for Rosettenville; he says that we must not give offence. I agree with him wholeheartedly, but I want to say that while one may give a definition of a word or an expression and while there may be not the slightest intention on the part of the compiler to give offence, a user may well have the intention of giving offence, depending on the way in which he uses the word. We are of course powerless to prevent that. I just want to tell the hon. member that as I have already said in my Second Reading speech, the Dictionary has already reached the letter “K”. In other words, we are far past the letter “J”, and up to now we have had no court case as a result of the explanation and definition of the word “Jood” (Jew) appearing in the Dictionary.

What are we afraid of?

I am not afraid of anything. I am telling the hon. member what the factual position is; this was also the factual position in England and in Holland. In spite of that there were court cases later, when semantic deterioration or obsolescence occurred. We therefore consider it to be necessary to act and to provide that these people dealing with these matters, are protected against such prosecution.

What was the outcome of the court cases in the other countries you have referred to?

I do not have the details of what occurred in respect of those court cases. To the best of my knowledge, some of them have not yet been finalized.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Maitland that the principle at stake he is having difficulty with is not really a peculiar one. If I were to call the hon. member a scoundrel in this House, you, Mr. Chairman, would rule me out of order because I have no right to call him that since it is unparliamentary. When I leave this Chamber, I may tell the hon. member that he is a scoundrel and then it is a matter between him and me. Why then should the compilers of the dictionary not be protected while the individual must see to it himself that he keeps within bounds?

[Inaudible.]

Order!

There are so many examples. The hon. member is now looking for examples of semantic deterioration. For example the word “jakkals” (fox), usually only indicates an animal, but it has a bad connotation if I refer to someone as a “jakkals”. So, too, there is the word “manteldraaier” (turncoat). The problem becomes somewhat more involved when proper names undergo semantic deterioration. If I were to call someone a Stalin, it would imply that I said he was a communist. I am not allowed to do this and if I should do it, then that person can deal with me as he thinks fit. There are many such examples.

I would like to come to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban Central. One must deduct that the hon. member is in favour of this clause being deleted and of it being possible for the compilers of the dictionary to be brought before the courts, because nothing would happen to them since they would have a defence in that they did not act deliberately. If that were to happen, however, a stigma would attach to those people and it would cast suspicion onto the dictionary and its compilers. We want to prevent that at all costs.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The protection of and control over the living marine resources, seaweed, shells, and the recovery of salt from sea-water within the fishing zone of the Republic and South-West Africa are at present being exercised in terms of the following legislation—

1. (a) the Sea Fisheries Act, 1940 (Act No. 10 of 1940);
2. (b) the Rock Lobster Export Act, 1940 (Act No. 9 of 1940);
3. (c) the Sealing and Fisheries Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. 12 of 1949); and
4. (d) the Fisheries Development Act, 1944 (Act No. 44 of 1944).

In order to obtain uniform and more effective control over these matters for both the Republic and South-West Africa, those principles which relate to control of resources and are contained in these Acts which I have just mentioned, are being consolidated in the proposed Bill and, where necessary, supplemented or amended. Control over distribution and trade promotion are covered under the proposed amendment of the Fishing Industry Development Act by an amending Bill which also appears on the Order Paper.

As hon. members may have noticed, however, the former proposed Bill basically contains only a few new principles, which I shall explain briefly in my speech, and in effect this Bill seeks to provide a more effective measure, one which has been adapted to the changed circumstances found in the fishing industry at present, and to streamline the administration of the Act to a greater extent.

Clause 1 makes provision for a number of necessary definitions.

Clause 2 provides that the Minister shall establish one Fisheries Advisory Council for the Republic and South-West Africa or, according as he may deem fit, such a council for the territory of South-West Africa and a separate council for the Republic, for the purpose of advising him on those matters in which he is, in terms of this Bill, required to consult the advisory council or on such matters as the Minister may refer to it.

The proposed constitution of the council or councils and the interests that shall be represented on it are by and large the same as those prescribed at present by the provisions of Act No. 44 of 1944, and the clause also makes provision for the continued existence of the present Fisheries Advisory Council for the Republic and the Fisheries Advisory Board of South-West Africa appointed under Act No. 44 of 1944 and Ordinance No. 12 of 1949, respectively. These separate bodies, i.e. the Fisheries Advisory Council and the Fisheries Advisory Board, shall continue to exist until such time as the Minister deems it fit to dissolve them and to appoint a new council or councils under clause 2 of the Bill. I shall come back to this later on.

Clause 3 makes provision for the appointment of advisory committees to advise the Director of Sea Fisheries on the issuing of boat licences in cases where restrictions on fishing are applied. At the present moment we have a boat limitation committee constituted in terms of the provisions of Act No. 10 of 1940 for the purpose of advising the licensing officer in the issuing of licences in cases where restrictions are imposed on the catching of certain kinds of fish.

The restriction on the licensing of fishing boats in order to prevent boats from having excess capacity, is an important resource protective measure. Through the appointment of a boat limitation committee control in this regard is being exercised in this manner in consultation with the fishing industry.

Clause 4 authorizes the Minister to declare by notice in the Gazette harbours to be fishing harbours.

Clause 5 makes provision, just as does the existing legislation, for the appointment by the Minister of honorary fisheries officers and fisheries inspectors. Provision is also being made now for the issuing of certificates of appointment to officers for identification purposes.

Clause 6 confers upon fisheries inspectors and officers authorized thereto by the Minister, as well as members of the Police, certain powers enabling them to take the necessary steps for bringing to book persons who have contravened the provisions of this Bill.

These powers have been overhauled so as to eliminate such loopholes as are being experienced at present, but for the rest they are by and large the same as those being conferred upon such inspectors and officers at present in terms of section 3 of Act No. 10 of 1940. These include, inter alia, the power to examine fishing boats, vehicles, premises, implements and factories in order to ascertain whether the provisions of this Bill are being complied with.

This clause also makes provision, as is the case at present in the existing legislation, for powers for the seizure of any fishing boat, implement or fish as well as, now for the first time, any vehicle, sea-weed and shells by an inspector or officer and, in cases where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed in respect of these, for requiring the master and the crew of such fishing boat or persons on a vehicle or in a factory to furnish him with their names and addresses. In terms of this clause of the Bill inspectors or officers shall in the exercise of their powers also be deemed to be peace officers, as defined in section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955 (Act No. 56 of 1955). This clause confers upon honorary fisheries Officers the same powers as the ones they have at present under the existing Act, i.e. those in respect of requiring any persons who are in a position to furnish information in connection with, or were involved in, the commission of any offence under this Bill, to furnish them with their names.

Clause 7 lays down, with a greater degree of clarity than is the case in the existing legislation, the procedure that has to be followed in the registration of fishing boats. Furthermore, the circumstances under which the Director of Sea Fisheries may refuse to register a fishing boat are being defined clearly now.

In cases where the harbour facilities in any fishing harbour are inadequate for accommodating more fishing boats, this clause also authorizes the Minister to issue a direction to the effect that the director may not register any additional boats in respect of that harbour. Similar powers are contained at present in Act No. 44 of 1944 in respect of controlled areas. The clause also lays down that the registration number of fishing boats shall be affixed on such boats, and that, inter alia, if the name or address of the owner is changed or the boat is altered in such a manner that the description thereof in the register is incorrect, the director shall be notified of such change or alteration. It is now being provided that the director may refuse or suspend the registration of boats if the boats in question are not being used as bona fide fishing boats.

Clause 8 provides for and regulates the licensing of fishing boats and factories intended for the commercial catching or processing of fish, and grants authority for prescribing the procedure to be followed in issuing licences as well as for prescribing licence fees. These powers and procedures are now being defined more clearly than is the case in the existing legislation.

This clause also authorizes the director to impose conditions restricting the catching of fish belonging to a particular species, but these will only be imposed upon the recommendation of a boat limitation committee, to which I referred while dealing with clause 3.

This clause also authorizes the Minister now to regulate the licensing of implements for the catching of fish in cases where this is deemed necessary.

Clause 9 provides that any decision of the director in respect of the registration of fishing boats and the licensing of fishing boats and factories shall be subject to an appeal to the Minister. A similar provision is contained in Act No. 44 of 1944.

Clause 10 authorizes the Minister (a) to proclaim in various areas a catching season for fish belonging to various species; these powers are already in existence in terms of existing legislation; (b) to determine landing places for fish and to control the conveyance of fish from such landing places; and (c) to impose by way of a levy a tax on the supply of ships’ stores, excluding medical supplies, to certain fishing boats. This provision was taken from the ordinance to which reference was made, and is intended to make it possible to take action against the fishing boats of hostile countries or countries which do not respect our conservation measures.

Clause 11 authorizes the Minister to take measures for keeping the exploitation level of the fishing resources of the Republic and South-West Africa within the productive capacity thereof, and the Minister may, after he has consulted the advisory council—

1. (a) determine catching and landing quotas;
2. (b) regulate the supply of any fish;
3. (c) determine factory quotas; and
4. (d) restrict factory licences.

In principle these powers are already in existence in Act No. 10 of 1940, but the powers of the Minister are now being defined more widely and more accurately. Provision is also being made for restricting the use of any fishing boat or any factory boat to a defined area.

Clause 12 authorizes the Minister to exercise control over the gathering and removal of sea-weed and shells and the recovery of salt from the sea. This clause was taken over from the present provisions of Act No. 10 of 1940. The quantity of shells that may be removed by a person without a permit, is being reduced from 10 kg per day to 1 kg per day.

Clause 13 authorizes the Minister to make regulations in connection with a whole series of powers contained in the Bill in order that its objectives may be achieved.

Clause 14 authorizes the Minister to obtain information from any person carrying on any fishing business which may be of importance in the administration of the provisions of this Bill or to research purposes. Limited powers are already contained in the present legislation, but these are being extended so as to cover any species of fish or activity in connection with the catching and processing of fish.

Clause 15 empowers the Minister to delegate the powers conferred upon him in this Bill. These powers are already in existence, but are now being defined more closely. Provision is being made for appeals to the Minister in the exercise of delegated powers.

Clause 16 defines the offences and penalties for contravening the provisions of this Bill. Maximum penalties are being increased effectively in the case of the Republic and reduced in some cases in South-West Africa.

Clause 17 makes provison for forfeiture and seizure by the court in the case of any person being convicted of an offence, and was taken over, with slight changes, from the existing legislation. Provision is also being made now for the court to declare any vehicles used in connection with an offence to be forfeited.

Clause 18 makes provision for jurisdiction of courts and evidence for trying charges relating to offences. The provisions of this clause are virtually the same as those occurring in this respect in Act No. 10 of 1940, except for the new provision to the effect that it will not be possible for an accused to put forward the defence that he had no knowledge of some fact or other or did not act wilfully. This is a new principle and is being deemed necessary because in the past numerous offenders were acquitted by the courts on these grounds. Subclause 4 is a new provision which seeks to curb pollution of the sea by fish factories.

Clause 19 establishes a Sea Fisheries Research Fund. In terms of the existing legislation two levies are in force at present for the purpose of collecting funds for fisheries research in the fishing industry, i.e. a levy of 3 cents on fishermen and 6 cents on producers in respect of every ton of pelagic fish landed or processed in South-West Africa (Government Notice No. 11 of 3rd January, 1966), and a levy of 2 cents on fishermen and 3 cents on producers in respect of every ton of pelagic fish supplied or processed in the Republic (Proclamation No. 69 of 1956). The unspent balances of these levies, as well as the new moneys that will be collected, will be paid into the new fund and are intended to be used for research purposes in a manner to be determined by the Minister after consultation with the Advisory Council.

Clause 20 authorizes the Minister to impose, in consultation with the Advisory Council, levies on various species of fish landed by fishermen, and to lay down the practical arrangements in that connection.

Clause 21 limits the liability of the State (except in cases of any wilful act or omission) in respect of damage and claims by the public when injuries are sustained or losses are incurred on any vehicles, vessels or aircraft of the Department of Industries or in fishing harbours. This is a new provision.

Clause 22 authorizes the Minister to grant exemptions from any provision of this Bill, for instance for scientific research purposes, and is consistent with provisions of the existing legislation in this regard.

Clause 23 provides that this Bill, as is the case at present in the existing legislation, shall not apply under certain circumstances. A departure from the existing legislation is that the provisions of this Bill will in fact apply in Bantu homelands situated in Natal and abutting on the sea. This amendment is intended to promote the development of fish-processing industries on behalf of the Bantu homelands.

Clause 24 provides that the provisions of this Bill shall also be applicable, as is also the case in the existing legislation, outside the fishing zone of the Republic in respect of any fishing boats licensed in terms of this Bill.

Clause 25 provides for the repeal of the Acts and ordinances specified in the Schedule to this Bill.

Clause 26 contains the short title.

†Mr. Speaker, in short, these are the principles contained in this Bill and as I have explained at the beginning of my speech hon. members will have noticed that the Bill is, to a very large extent, based on the provisions of the existing legislation in this regard.

In conclusion I also wish to inform hon. members that in drafting the Bill cognizance was taken of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Fishing Industry and although this is not the appropriate time to discuss the recommendations of the commission in depth, I may mention that apart from the provisions of clauses 2 and 23(1)(c) of the Bill none of the principles contained therein are in conflict with the recommendations of the commission.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, the Government has not seen its way clear to accept the recommendation of the commission for the establishment of a new central co-ordinating Fisheries Board to substitute the Fisheries Development Advisory Council of the Republic and the Fisheries Development Advisory Board of South-West Africa. The opinion is held that the establishment of the proposed Central Fisheries Board, taking into consideration the expenses involved in appointing a permanent staff and providing for the accommodation and other facilities of such a board and its staff, would not necessarily result in the furnishing to the Minister of policy proposals regarding resource control in a more effective manner than the existing arrangements.

As far as clause 23(1)(c) is concerned, the commission has recommended that the provisions of the Sea Fisheries Act should also apply to the catching of fish from the coast of Natal. Although this recommendation is also not acceptable at this stage the provisions of the Bill are made applicable to Bantu Homelands in Natal where such homelands abut on the sea.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill consolidates and amends two Acts of the Republic and three Ordinances of South-West Africa. It also makes the Bill applicable to South-West Africa. Although this Bill is largely a consolidating measure, there are a number of changes which are fairly far-reaching. The hon. the Minister has dealt with each clause in detail, but there are one or two that I must refer to again.

Firstly, in clause 2, provision is made for the appointment of a Fisheries Advisory Council or Councils. The people who are to be appointed to this council or these councils are mentioned in subsection (2) of this clause. Two are to be appointed on account of their knowledge of the fisheries science or industrial economics, and the others shall represent the interests of the Fisheries Development Corporation of South Africa, the South African Bureau of Standards, the distributors of fish, persons engaged in trawling, persons concerned in the pelagic fish industry, persons concerned in the rock-lobster industry, persons concerned in the catching or processing of fish other than trawl-fish, pelagic fish and rock-lobster, as well as such other persons as the Minister may determine. Mr. Speaker, we are not overenamoured of councils where the Minister has the right to appoint additional people without any specific qualifications. Here we have a clause where people who are really interested in the fishing industry have been named, but as a sort of safeguard—I hope it is only as a safeguard—we have a subclause which reads that such other persons may be appointed as the Minister may determine. I think the Minister should perhaps give consideration to removing subclause (8) so that the people who shall be represented on this advisory council are clearly stated.

Sir, in terms of clause 3, advisory committees may be appointed to advise the Director of Sea Fisheries, and here the situation is even worse, because here the hon. the Minister has a completely free hand. There is no indication as to who will be nominated and which industries or which scientific sectors are to be represented on these committees. The hon. the Minister has a completely free hand in the matter.

Now we come to clause 6, which is a clause that gives an inspector very powerful rights. He can board any fishing boat or enter any factory; he can examine any implement used for fishing; he can enter upon and search any premises or vehicles or boats or factories and he can search any person. He can require the persons on such fishing boats or vehicles or premises to furnish him with their names and addresses, and he can, by prescribed signal, order the master of a fishing boat to stop or to sail into a harbour, or he can order the master of the fishing boat to remove it from the harbour. He can question any person who, in his opinion, has information which he requires. He can require a person to produce invoices or delivery notes; he can seize invoices; he can direct any person employed on or at a fishing boat to assist him in the examination. Sir, these are very drastic powers that are being given to an inspector. The saving clause, I think, is that he must act in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act. If it were not for that, we would not be able to accept this clause, but it is the first of a number of clauses in this Bill that provide for an enormous amount of control over the whole fishing industry and for exceptional powers to a great number of people. Some, it is true, are extant, but there are many other that are new provisions.

If we go on to clause 10, Sir, you will find that additional powers are given, and these powers are given to the Minister. Simply by notice in the Gazette he may make regulations in respect of a great number of things, and we find this repeated in other clauses of the Bill. In terms of clause 10 he can, by notice in the Gazette, make regulations for the protection of fish and the restriction of the landing of fish and the supplying of ships’ stores, and this clause prohibits an enormous number of things. He can prohibit people from catching or disturbing fish. He can prohibit people from landing fish; he can prohibit people from removing fish from one place to another without his authority; he can prohibit ships’ stores being supplied, except for medical stores, and he can impose a levy.

Then we go along to clause 11 and again the hon. the Minister, after consultation with the Advisory Council, although he does not have to take the advice at all, again by notice in the Gazette can make regulations to restrict the quantities of fish which may be caught or processed. He can prohibit the holders of licences from catching or landing fish. He can regulate the supply of fish. He can prohibit any particular factory from receiving or manufacturing in the course of any specified year greater quantities, etc. And all this is done by regulation, Sir.

Then we come to clause 13, and here again the hon. the Minister is given power to make regulations by simply promulgating them in the Gazette. He can prohibit the use of any particular kind of instrument. He can prescribe the form of licences and permits, the nature and construction of nets, the methods by which fish may be caught. He can also tell us when we go fishing how many fish we are allowed to catch and what kind of fish, because it says “specified by number and mass”. He can prescribe the size of the fish that is caught. He can prohibit the dumping of fish. He can provide for the disposal of fish. He can regulate and control the management of harbours. Clause after clause after clause gives the Minister the right, in terms of regulations he can publish in the Government Gazette, to do practically anything he likes. Parliament has lost its authority almost entirely over the fishing industry, and in regard to these regulations I have just mentioned there is a fine of R1 000 or imprisonment for a period of one year if these regulations are contravened.

Then we come to clause 16, which deals with offences and penalties. Here the offences are in regard to a person who catches or kills fish by means of poisoning or detonations, or catches fish by means of an implement which is prohibited, catches fish by means of any method not prescribed, catches fish of the wrong size, too small or too big; if he possesses, sells or displays or offers for sale any fish prohibited in terms of the Act, if he returns to the sea or abandons any marketable fish, if he exports fish, except in terms of a permit—whatever he does with his fish, unless he does it in terms of the Act or in terms of the hon. the Minister’s regulations, he is committing an offence. I can understand it being an offence if he resists or hinders fishing inspectors from doing their duty, or falsely represents himself to be an inspector, or uses any fishingboat without the consent of the owner, etc. But the penalty for any of these offences is high.

The hon. the Minister said they had been increased in some cases and decreased in some cases. They were increased in so far as the Republic was concerned but decreased in so far as South-West Africa was concerned. But in so far as the Republic is concerned, the penalties have been increased from a fine of £100 to R7 500, or imprisonment for five years, or both. This is a lot of money to pay, Sir, and a lot of time to spend in gaol for contravening some of the provisions. The problem is that some of these offences are very minor ones. It is true that the magistrate or the judge will have the authority to impose a minimum sentence, because these are maximum sentences, but I think one has to be careful in providing for sentences in terms of an Act that the judiciary does not get the impression, when they see they can sentence a man to gaol for five years and fine him R7 500, that we regard all the offences set out in this clause as being very serious, enough to warrant these maximum sentences.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not have been well-advised to split these offences into categories and provide different sentences. It is true there are some offences here which are serious, particularly in relation to crayfish, because crayfish has now taken the place of diamonds and gold. Originally in South Africa, after the discovery of diamonds in Kimberley, illicit diamond dealing used to be the number one crime in this country. You went to the breakwater for it. Then when gold was discovered on the Witwatersrand, illicit gold dealing became the number one crime. But when you read this Bill, and the penalties that are imposed for offences one gets the feeling that the illegal catching of crayfish or dealing in crayfish illegally has now become the number one crime in South Africa. The penalties are very severe indeed.

Is that why crayfish is so expensive in Parliament?

It is cheap in Parliament. I would not like to say too much about that. The provisions of the Bill in connection with the Sea Fisheries Research Fund and the imposition of levies are acceptable and welcome to us. The fishing industry of South Africa today is one of our most important industries. It is an industry that has to be protected, an industry that has to be guided, an industry that has to be helped, an industry that has to be nurtured. We realize the importance of this industry to the economy of South Africa. We realize that it requires research to be done for the industry to expand. We realize that it requires controls so that the industry should not be ruined. We understand that the fishing industry has been consulted in regard to this Bill and that it has their approval. Therefore we will support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part in this debate. This Bill, which is actually a consolidating measure which consolidates four existing Acts and adapts and supplements them to fit in with present-day circumstances, is definitely essential.

I listened with appreciation to the concern which the hon. member for Parktown also shares with us about the fishing industry, and therefore I cannot quite understand why the hon. member sees so many dark clouds as far as this Bill is concerned. It is true that this Bill contains drastic measures. However, the hon. member replied in his own terms to the concern he feels by saying that the fishing industry is a very important industry. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the past has taught us that measures concerning the fishing industry cannot be too strict. It would be interesting to learn what the view of the hon. member for Simonstown is in this connection, because I think that if he consistently wants to pursue his trend of thought, he must support this Bill throughout or much rather propose more drastic measures.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the composition of the advisory councils. The hon. the Minister also referred to them, but because we are now at the very beginning of discussions about this Bill, I should also like to refer to them briefly. At the very end of his speech the hon. the Minister explained that he did not see his way clear to accepting the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Fishing Industry in respect of the appointment of a Fisheries Council. He also pointed out that it is not a convenient time now to discuss the report of the commission as such, and I should like to acquiesce to that.

Why?

However, I shall probably be granted the opportunity of just dwelling for a moment on the advisory council. Someone asked: “Why?” Probably because I have every right to do so. Since one can, in a democratic country such as this, have the privilege of speaking in detail and at length about this and making one’s suggestions, I want to take this opportunity of saying that I personally am very grateful. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Fishing Industry, would come to only one conclusion, i.e. that over the past year or two the Government has accepted virtually all the recommendations of that commission. I think that is an achievement. When it is a matter of establishing an advisory council, or a fisheries council in its stead, I really do not think it is something which makes all that much difference. Clause 2 specifically deals with the composition of the advisory council. I now want to point out to hon. members that if they were to look at that, they would see that the composition of this Fisheries Advisory Council, as laid down in this Bill, is essentially the same as that recommended by the Commission of Inquiry into the Fishing Industry. The only difference is that the commission recommended that the fisheries council should have more status, that it should be more active and that under the guidance of a permanent chairman, it would meet more frequently and advise the Minister. Advisory councils as such are not unknown at all; on the contrary—they are well-known phenomena in the fishing industry. There is at present one for South-West Africa and one for the Republic of South Africa. There are many parallels for these advisory councils, for example the harbours advisory councils. They function very well. Unfortunately in the past—and then I am saying this with a great deal of respect and esteem for the members serving on the advisory councils—those advisory councils did not always function smoothly. There were certain stumbling blocks in their way. I can recall, for example, the objections which were raised by the representatives of the boat owners, the representatives of the fishermen on the one hand and the representatives of industry on the other. One has three representatives, two of whom adopt the same standpoint, while another adopts a different standpoint. That is the relationship which obtained in the past. It is a relationship that still exists at present, i.e. that of employee to employer. Employees have always, to a certain extent, hesitated to adopt a standpoint in respect of the employer. Then there was also the standpoint of industry, which felt that their representations were not always carried through to a higher authority as desired. Right or wrong, the allegations were made. At times the Sea Fisheries Division also felt that they were being handicapped and that their recommendations sometimes did not carry the necessary weight with higher authority, particularly because it was possible, and still is, for the industry to gain direct access to higher authority. I do not think that these are substantial problems, but I am nevertheless mentioning them to hon. members. As far as the fishing industry is concerned, other problems were frequently raised, problems such as the fact that agendas were frequently not available in good time, and that as representatives of boards of directors they were not always in a position to consult their boards of directors in advance. Their objection was, therefore, that it was difficult for them to adopt any standpoint when an important matter had to be discussed. I want to say at once—and I am the first to want to concede this—that if one considers the circumstances and developments of the past, one must accept that very frequently there was information hot from the press that had to be discussed and that had to be tabled. In such cases it was not always necessary to take note of this in advance. I therefore say to hon. members that there is a right side, a wrong side, my side, your side and the other man’s side. Thus a great deal of unnecessary resistance developed, when in fact one should rather have discussed these matters soberly. This Bill aims at instituting advisory councils and I want to support it. I nevertheless want to ask that we should try to improve on that, bearing in mind the problems of the past. It is my honest opinion that these advisory councils can be used efficiently. Unfortunately, in the past there has not always been the necessary interest on the part of all the representatives. Therefore I say that it is firstly essential for all interested parties to ensure in the future that they only nominate people who are really serious as far as this matter is concerned, people with knowledge, people who are prepared to make a contribution and a study of the matter and to help make these advisory councils useful bodies. Secondly, I respectfully want to suggest that the agenda and, in conjunction the memorandum, where necessary, should be posted in good time so that the necessary study and consultation can take place. I have already told you, Sir, that it is not always possible—I fully accept this fact—but, where possible, I want to advocate that this line of conduct be adopted. Thirdly I want to advocate that the two existing councils, that of South-West Africa and that of the Republic of South Africa, should be retained. Part of the recommendation of the commission of inquiry into the fishing industry was that these two bodies should become one, but then a stronger body. I personally feel that when we are confining ourselves to advisory councils, these councils can function better if they contain members who know local conditions, because the conditions of South-West Africa and those of the Republic differ: the species differ, the methods differ; and local problems vary from place to place. Since the powers have been given to the Minister and he therefore has the discretion, I just want to advocate that we preferably retain these two bodies instead of establishing one co-ordinated body for both. Fourthly I want to advocate regular liaison. The Sea Fisheries Division is doing tremendous work, and I really think that that division cannot but be proud of its work. Exchanging, more information with industry and other interested parties, and exchanging it more frequently, would increase their prestige and eliminate unnecessary speculation. It is my conviction, as I have already said, that these bodies can do valuable and useful work. That is all I want to say about that.

In terms of clause 3 the existing boat limiting committees are being replaced. I trust that the effort to limit the number of boats and, where necessary, to reduce their number judiciously, will receive high priority.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Are the boat limiting committees hereby being replaced?

As I understand it, the boat limiting committees are being replaced. These new committees are then, in fact, the boat limiting committees but I foresee that they can function more efficiently.

Correct.

I just want to advocate that they always keep this idea well to the fore, that we should endeavour to reduce the number of boats where this is at all possible, and not increase their number at all. I want to focus the hon. the Minister’s attention on the fact that this endeavour has sometimes been frustrated in the past. In that connection I mention, for example, the case of an industry in Walvis Bay which, at the end of the season, obtains additional boats from Gansbaai or elsewhere to help it increase its catching effort for those final months. I am convinced of the fact that clause 13(1) (1) grants the necessary authorization to take action against this and I want to advocate that this custom be stopped completely. The object is to reduce the number of boats. It is no use our having only 90 boats there during the year and then 100 for a specific period. This would frustrate the entire object.

Clause 5 deals with the appointment of honorary fisheries officers while clause 6 lays down their powers. I found it remarkable that the hon. member for Parktown was also concerned about these powers which are being granted in terms of clause 6. I want to give the assurance that these powers are necessary and I fully want to support this.

But let us now look at these honorary fisheries officers. My first reaction is that it is actually a pity that authorization is only being granted to these honorary fisheries officers in respect of paragraphs (b) and (d). These respective paragraphs deal with the specific powers these honorary fisheries officers will have, i.e. to take the addresses of persons concerned and then place the matter before the Police or another body. My first reaction was that paragraph (a), which deals with entering a premises or a boat, should also be made applicable here. If one views this matter soberly, one hesitates to make such a request, because it could easily be abused and give rise to a great deal of friction. However, it is more essential than ever before that the appointment of these honorary fisheries officers be handled with the utmost circumspection. I want to advocate that here we should not distribute badges and see how many people we can appoint. With respect to South-West Africa with its fishing areas which I regard as being very important, I want to advocate that we entrust this task to certain persons with the utmost circumspection, and then only to persons who are really serious about the industry, otherwise we would be initiating a witch hunt which would only result in unnecessary annoyance to the industry and the State. Clause 7(6) provides, inter alia, that a boat may not be alienated without the approval of the director. I take it that a purchase transaction cannot be negatived by the director and I should like to have confirmation from the hon. the Minister in this connection. It is a fact that the sale and purchase of a boat, as with any other item, depends upon the economic factor of supply and demand. I should like to see this principle honoured. I believe I am interpreting this correctly, but I just want confirmation from the hon. the Minister that it will not be possible to refuse such a transaction. Clause 13(1) authorizes the Minister to make regulations—which the hon. member for Parktown also referred to—which are necessary and which must be implemented. I just want to refer to one of these, i.e. clause 13(1)(g) which will be used to control the dumping of fish offal into the sea. At present there are many activities along the west coast and a tremendous mass of fish is being caught by trawling. In the course of processing and filleting about 60% of that fish is dumped back into the sea. I want to say at once that foreign powers are chiefly involved in this. It is alleged that many of these trawling grounds are now being deserted, that the fish are moving away and because they do not live in graveyard areas, they consequently move to other feeding grounds eventually. I want to express the hope that the Sea Fisheries Division will take a look at this serious problem and, where it is at all possible, take action to squash this evil. I believe that methods can be found for gathering these fish at sea and for selling this offal on land to bodies that process it for the manufacture of fish meal or other by-products, for which there is a tremendously good market and for which there is a big shortage throughout the world.

The pollution of the sea by factories is equally alarming and I trust that the necessary steps will be taken in terms of clause 18(4) to correct this. Those of us who are frequently at the sea when the fishing industry is in full swing, will realize that the pollution is tremendous. I welcome this measure, because it is actually restricting the pollution up to a distance of 8 km. I think it would be of tremendous help to get our beaches clean again and to again restore our sea life there. I want to advocate that the necessary attention be given to this.

Clause 16 deals with offences and penalties. I regret to say that a day or two ago it again came to my attention that the alleged dumping of fish in South-West Africa is still occurring intermittently. As I have it, it is apparently taking place on a small scale, but it causes concern. It is a pity that there are still people who, in times like these, after all the problems we have experienced, and now that fish seem to be abundant, are guilty of conduct such as this. I am grateful that I can say that these are really isolated cases but, Sir, on several occasions in this House I have already advocated that the State Guano Islands Division should be dissociated from the Sea Fisheries Division as such. I am now again referring to this dissociation in respect of the production of guano and the processing of seals, so that this equipment can be used for essential source control.

Research is a big and important task. In the past it has happened, at our instigation, that the Government was compelled for a year or more to withdraw the Sea Fisheries Division from their important task and to use its members as policemen. One hesitates to think what could happen if they were now to be disturbed again in this big task they are engaged on. Therefore I want to advocate that this division, the Industries and Sea Fisheries Division, should again review this whole matter of source control and conservation to see what can be done to achieve the best results.

Clause 19 deals with the establishment of a Sea Fisheries Research Fund. This is gratifying, because we were afraid that when the available funds eventually dried up, this programme would again suffer. We welcome this. We also welcome the attitude of industry. Industry welcomes this action. Industry has never been afraid to make its contribution when and where this was necessary. Now I just want to point out that this clause specifically makes provision for certain funds to be transferred to this department for the purposes of research. In sub-section (1)(a) the funds from South-West Africa are specifically mentioned, amounting at present to R518 000. The two levies are applicable to South-West Africa. The so-called Fishcor levy is mentioned in paragraph (b), which makes provision for the funds, at present still in the possession of Fishcor and collected by way of levies, to now be paid over, i.e. R164 000. Paragraph (c) makes provision for levies which will be imposed in terms of this Bill in future. In paragraph (d) mention is made of money from other sources. Here we are specifically dealing with the so-called Sarusas funds, to which the hon. member for Simonstown referred. In his reply in the House the hon. the Minister has already referred to the fact that an amount of R648 000 is involved and that this fund will also be used for research purposes.

I again want to make a serious appeal to the hon. member for Simonstown.

Do not spoil your speech now!

I want to make a serious appeal to him. The hon. member is so easily hurt. Sir, if I wanted to be spiteful I could, but I have specifically tried to be civil. However, there is certain conduct that makes it very difficult for a person to remain civil. I just want to ask the hon. member something again: this Bill had already been tabled on the day when the utterance in respect of these funds was made. I really feel that if the hon. member had made the necessary inquiries it would never have been necessary for him to have made these remarks. It is so regrettable—and in my opinion this is what it is all about—that when the hon. member launches attacks here on the hon. the Minister and the Government, this is blazoned forth by the English Press. But when the reply comes, the situation is never corrected. That is what I am opposed to, Sir. I think it is only right and fair that I ask the hon. member today: Let him use his own judgment. If he thinks it is necessary, he himself should make the necessary correction here. If he thinks he acted correctly, I leave it to his own conscience to judge.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commence by tendering my apology to the hon. the Minister because I shall not be here to hear his reply later on. I have already explained my difficulty to the hon. the Minister. My colleague, the hon. member for Zululand, will be here, as will my financial friend, the hon. member for Parktown.

The man with the big purse!

Well, he is worth while having as a friend; I can assure the hon. the Minister of that. Sir, there are two points I should like to raise. Firstly, I want to say that while I appreciate the Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister made just now, there is, I think, one very important point which he omitted. While I shall not be here to listen to the hon. the Minister’s reply, I am sure that if we can have a reply in this connection, it will be much appreciated. He forgot to tell us where the ordinary public can get crayfish at a reasonable price. We have this Fisheries Bill before us; all the machinery is here; the Minister has the power to take fishing boats, to put people in gaol and to fine them R7 500, and all the rest of it, but this simple question remains: Where can we get crayfish at a reasonable price? How can ordinary folk like you, Mr. Speaker, in your private capacity, and I, in my private capacity, manage to find crayfish at a reasonable price?

And, of course, how to cook it.

Mr. Speaker, if I can get the crayfish, I know how to cook it. What I am concerned about is what cooking goes on before we get the crayfish. This is what is worrying me at the present time. However, perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us.

The other point I want to make is that I think we all appreciate that this Bill shows that the changing circumstances are now laying very great emphasis on the economic value to South Africa of our fishing industry. That is exemplified in this Bill, and the other Bill of like nature which appears with it on the Order Paper. This Bill emphasizes and establishes the importance which we feel attaches to this industry in the economic life of South Africa.

Because my time is short, I should like to deal at once, if I may, with clause 2 of the Bill. This clause makes provision for the appointment of the Fisheries Advisory Council. Subsection (2) of this clause provides for certain persons to be appointed to the council, and here I want to refer to paragraph (viii) of subsection (2)(b), which states that certain members shall represent the interests of “such other persons as the Minister may determine”. Subsection (3) then goes on to state—

In this connection I want to point out that Natal is the only province which has a constitutional right as regards the protection of in-shore fishing, which includes the estuaries, bays, the coastline, and so forth. That was in the Constitution at the time of Union, and it was reaffirmed in our Republican Constitution. We are the only province to which this applies. The Cape Province, the other maritime province, made other arrangements some years ago, and it no longer exercises those powers. I would like to ask the Minister, in the light to paragraph (viii) of clause 2(2)(b), read together with clause 2(3), to consult with our Administrator in this regard who, after all, is the official head of the Administration which controls the Natal Parks Board, a statutory body, and the other bodies associated with fishing all along the coast. I may say that this is today producing a very large sum in revenue, and very strict control is being exercised over these activities.

Having left that request with the hon. the Minister, I now move on to clause 15(3), which the hon. the Minister referred to, and to a corresponding provision, namely clause 23(1)(c), where provision is made for the retention of powers by Natal in respect of the catching of fish “in enclosed tidal lagoons, tidal rivers and estuaries along the coast of the province of Natal or from the said coast …”. As the hon. the Minister pointed out, provision is made for this measure to apply only to those areas which are scheduled Bantu areas and areas owned by the Bantu Trust. As to the rest of the coast of Natal, we are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. At present the de facto control is exercised by the Natal Parks Board and its officers. Very important and expensive scientific investigations are being carried out there, and I think it can be said that we are on very good terms with the Department of Sea Fisheries; we are working together very well. But, Sir, the point I want to make here is that the Minister can delegate his powers even in respect of those cases in Natal which are exceptions to the general rule, that is to say, cases where this measure will for the first time apply, namely in the scheduled areas and the areas in the ownership of the Bantu Trust. For the first time this measure will apply in those areas on the coast. As the matter stands at present, no machinery whatsoever has been established for the conservation of those coastal areas, once the officials of the Natal Parks Board have been removed in terms of this provision. Now provision is made for the Minister to delegate his powers, but, in terms of clause 15(3), he may do so only after obtaining “the written approval of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development”. So the Minister, if he desires to delegate his powers in respect of those areas, must get the written permission of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the conservation of our coastline and of our marine life generally is something which is very dear to our hearts in Natal; it is very dear to the Parks Board and to the Administration. In regard to this particular matter we, at the present time, on behalf of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, administer, for the purpose of the protection of the turtle laying-grounds, the whole of that area on the Tongoland coast, from Oro Point all the way down to Sordwana Bay, except for a piece of land which belongs to the Forestry Department. I am referring to the area under the control of the Department of Bantu Administration. For many years past they have not had the staff to undertake patrols in those areas. We, on the other hand, with the scientific work that has been done there by the scientists attached to the Natal Parks Board, have brought great fame to South Africa. The work and the experiments done there are internationally famous today, and this has given us a great reputation. This work is done with the approval of the Department of Bantu Administration. For many years we were aware that the turtles were nesting there, but we kept quiet about it because we did not want the public to go along there and start interfering with them. One of the species of turtle to be found there is the leatherback, which is one of the rarest species in the world today. It is a creature which grows about seven feet long over the carapace. By far the largest number of turtles there are, however, made up of loggerhead turtles, and in addition there are also a few other types which nest there. Some years ago, I think it may well be 12 or 15 years ago, when we found that people had at last discovered these turtles, we had to make up our minds what we were going to do about it. All we could do was to approach the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and say: “Look, this is what is happening; these turtles must be protected by people on the ground.” It is no good our making laws and passing regulations unless there is somebody who is going to patrol there, not only in day-time, but also at night, because the damage was being done at night by people who came and dug up the eggs; they took the turtles themselves and killed them, and as soon as the meat was carried through the sandhills into the adjoining bush, that was the end of the matter. It was only a matter of a short 50 or 60 yards, and the person had disappeared. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that this is a matter which over the years gave the Natal Parks Board a tremendous amount of trouble and difficulty until we found how to deal with this killing of these unfortunate creatures and the taking of their eggs. We tried patrolling with Landrovers, but of course, a Landrover’s lights show miles away. Every poacher on the whole of that coast, for 45 miles could see a Landrover coming three or four miles away, so eventually we had to get down to patrolling on foot. We have patrols on horseback, and that has been partly successful. But, Sir, we have succeeded, and we have done it with the approval of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I simply say to the Minister that a precedent has been created. I think he should have no difficulty about going to the Minister and saying: “Look, the Natal Parks Board has done a wonderful job of work there.” It is still in our care until such time as it is taken away from us. The Department of Bantu Administration had no people suitable for the job. We wanted scientists. It was not sufficient to put what I would call a policeman or a guard on the job. We wanted scientists. One of the foremost world scientists today in regard to pelagic turtles is a man called George Hughes, who started as a student at the university and came and spent his spare time during university vacations doing work there for which we paid him R2 or R3 a day. He started his career there and he has now finished up as a world scientist associated with the marine biological research station in Durban. Sir, here is an example, and I say to the Minister that I would be most grateful if, in the interests of conservation, if nobody else is going to do the work of conservation in these areas which are now being excluded from the control of the Natal Provincial Administration and brought directly under the control of his department in terms of these two sections, he would consult with his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and perhaps then delegate his authority to the Administrator so that he in turn can delegate it to the Natal Parks Board, because I am sure that the cause of conservation will be well served through that kind of development. Thereafter, if the Minister desires it, it can be withdrawn at any time, of course. We have a similar arrangement with the Minister of Transport, Mr. Schoeman, over the whole of Richards Bay, and bit by bit, as he has wanted to develop there, we have deproclaimed areas of Richards Bay, which initially was a proclaimed nature reserve. The portion which is gradually left is retreating further and further up the lagoon. Ultimately there will be a small piece left there, I believe, for many, many years to come. But, Sir, there has been the greatest goodwill and agreement and co-operation on both sides, and I would appeal to the Minister not to leave these areas without adequate protection, in the cause of conservation.

Sir, I had no intention of saying anything this afternoon about my recent speech in which I dealt with the concession and the licence to Sarusas, but the hon. member for Omaruru did refer to it and consequently I feel obliged to refer to it briefly. He said in the first place that when I made a speech on the fishing industry here in the House, it was puffed up by the English-language Press. Sir, to my mind the point is this: If it is newsworthy, it is puffed up in both the English-language Press and the Afrikaans-1973-05-10 language Press. In the case of the Sarusas part of my speech, i.e. the last 10 minutes of my speech of 30 minutes, both the English-language Press and the Afrikaans-language Press found it newsworthy and I was given wide publicity in Die Burger as well as in other Afrikaans-language newspapers for the statements which I had made.

That is why you made those statements.

Sir, I should like to refer briefly to the licence to Sarusas, the obligations and the trust fund. My statement was that the licence and the concession had been given to Sarusas on certain conditions.

Order! What does that have to do with the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Omaruru referred to this in the course of his speech, and all I am doing is to react to what he said. I only want to complete my point, with your permission, Sir. I said a licence and a concession were granted on certain conditions. The conditions were certain obligations and when the obligations fell away for good reasons, the concession and the licence should, to my mind, have fallen away as well. My question with regard to the Trust Fund was whether the amount still remained in the Trust Fund, or for which purposes it was being used; and if the hon. member is interested in my opinion, my opinion is that Sarusas should have been reimbursed with the amount in the Trust Fund as compensation for the quota and the licence which, to my mind, it should have lost. That is my view of the matter.

Sir, I come to the rest of the speech made by the hon. member for Omaruru and the points which he made. He said he believed I would support him whole-heartedly when he said that the disciplinary measures contained in this Bill would have my support. That is so. I agree 100%. In view of the prevailing circumstances in the fishing industry, there should be no doubt whatsoever about the matter of applying the strongest and the strictest disciplinary measures in the interests of everyone in the fishing industry and of the country as a whole.

†Then, as to the question of the Fishing Commission, both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Omaruru said that this was not an occasion to discuss the Fishing Commission. I would like to know when we will get an opportunity to discuss the contents of the Fishing Commission’s report. I think it is about time that a proper opportunity was given to discuss this very detailed report from the Fishing Commission, of which the hon. member for Omaruru was a member. The Minister, while saying that the measure before us was a consolidating measure, went so far as to say that it also incorporated many of the provisions in the report of the Fishing Commission, and he referred to some of them. I would like to say to him that it is correct that some of the recommendations of the Fishing Commission’s report are indeed included in the legislation before us, but the main proposal of the Fishing Commission was the establishment of a central fisheries board and that has been thrown overboard and has not been included in this legislation. That brings me to the next point.

I would have thought that having appointed a Fishing Commission five years ago, which sat for five years and reported towards the end of last session, before coming with legislation like this the Minister would very carefully have examined the proposals of the report and then have come with a very much more important Bill than the one before us at the moment. The same applies to the other Bill that will follow this Bill under discussion. I think this is patchwork and I have not the slightest doubt that within a year or two it will be necessary for the Minister to come back here with another Bill which will cover all aspects of the fishing industry, with particular reference to the suggestions and recommendations contained in the report.

The hon. member for Omaruru also referred to the honorary conservation officers and he hoped that only responsible people would be appointed as such officers. I quite agree with him. I happen to be one of them, and I hope that they will continue to appoint responsible persons to those posts! But I think his fears are groundless to a certain extent because as far as I know, it is conservation societies and other people who are deeply concerned with conserving our natural resources and it is they who will probably make recommendations to the department for the appointment of honorary conservation officers. I am not worried about them, and I think that, at any rate for as far as we can see into the future, it is necessary for those conservation officers to be appointed and to exercise their duties as efficiently as they possibly can, because they can fulfil a very useful function. One thinks particularly of a place like False Bay, the area I represent. With honorary conservation officers appointed to look after both sides of the bay, you can well ensure that fishing-boats do fish outside the limits marked by the buoys which have been put up in False Bay. I think that without the services of those honorary conservation officers the task of the department, as it is constituted at present, would be absolutely thankless and impossible.

As to the regulations and penalties to which he referred, I support him entirely in the strongest possible penalties being imposed for the dumping of fish. It is a scandalous thing. I hope that the department, notwithstanding the limited resources at its diposal, will be able to prosecute those people who are guilty of dumping surplus or unwanted fish. I shall not go into the reasons why dumping takes place; I think the hon. member for Omaruru and the hon. the Minister appreciate them. I do not think that stern enough penalties can be imposed to prevent the dumping of fish. As to foreigners, there are also punitive provisions in this Bill which are carried over from previous legislation concerning foreigners and the operation of foreign fleets. I likewise support them wholeheartedly.

I want to say a few words in connection with the fishing industry as such by way of preparatory words to what I am going to say about this Bill itself.

*There are, as I think you know, no consolidated statistical data in respect of either the Republic or South-West Africa which reflect the joint magnitude of the marine exploitation industries. There is simply nothing of this kind. Consequently I can give only an indication of the economic importance of the fishing industry, and to my mind it is appropriate for me to do so this afternoon, for although this is a piece of consolidating legislation, it is in fact very important legislation and it affects a very important industry. A few years ago the contribution of the fishing industry to the gross national product was 0,3%. With the inclusion of the processing sector, it amounted to 0,6%. Actually the fishing industry affects only the coastal areas and then only certain parts of our coastal areas. Naturally one thinks of Walvis Bay, Saldanha Bay, Cape Town and Gans Bay. At the moment the total sales of the fishing industry amount to approximately R100 million per year. Half of this is sold abroad and foreign exchange is earned for South Africa in this way.

†Approximately 90% of the weight of our fish catch results in an export amounting to R50 million per year. In so far as the internal product is concerned, the economy benefits in one shape or another to the extent of R50 million for table fish, cooking fats or oils and also for soap and other commodities of that kind. The products from the sea therefore cover a wide range and are of importance to us all economically. However, what surprises and horrifies me is the small use to which we as South Africans put our fish products. The only figures which I have at my disposal are those which are quoted in the South-West African report of 1967, where it was estimated that in South-West Africa at any rate something like 9 pounds of fish per capita was eaten each year. One can compare that with the United Kingdom where the per capita quantity consumed is 19,80 pounds and with Japan where the per capita consumption of fish is 52,14 pounds. It seems to me that we have to do what has been done in the case of dairy products and that is we have to undertake a far greater internal sales campaign for the marketing of our fish.

Does this include Africans?

Yes, it includes Bantu. …

*At the moment the fishing industry provides approximately 22 000 employment opportunities in the catching and processing sectors. According to the commission’s report, there is a capital investment of R150 million, which includes the value of the boats and the factories. If one includes the boat-building and maintenance industries, as well as the manufacturing and the electronic equipment industries, a further R50 million is invested in the fishing industry.

†The commercial fleet in South Africa at the moment numbers something like 1 000

crafts of over the length of 30 ft. The total catch in 1970 was 1 600 000 tons. This gives some idea of the importance of the industry.

Now I briefly want to refer to our international situation. In 1963, because of the expansion of purse-seine netting that was being undertaken at that time, South Africa became one of the few countries in the world that joined what was known as the “millionaires club”. The millionaires club consists of those countries which catch more than one million tons of products from the sea per annum. In 1969 we were already on the world map; we were in seventh place after Peru, Japan, China, Russia, the United States and Norway. When it came to the export of marine products we were one of the seven important fishing export lands in the world in the year 1969. Ninety per cent of our fish products were in fact exported. In respect of rock-lobster, we were the fourth most important country. In respect of canned fish, we were the third most important country and in the case of fish-oils, and soaps of one kind or another, we were the third most important country.

I want to move on to the question of management of this very valuable and very important industry, which, as the hon. member for Omaruru has quite rightly said, will grow in the future. There are many facets in the fishing industry which we are only just beginning to explore. One thinks for example of sea-farming. Tentative experiments are carried out at various parts of our coast in regard to sea-farming. One thinks for example of the production of oysters. As hon. members will know oysters are being cultivated in the Knysna lagoons and these industries are embryo industries which can grow to industries of considerable importance to the economy of South Africa. Therefore it is very important that they should not only be protected, but that they should also be properly managed.

The Fishing Commission, to which reference was made, was appointed in 1967 and it took five years to report. The final report was tabled in the middle of last year. I have read that final report from cover to cover, and I think that it is a very good report. I think it is a detailed report but I do have some criticism as to the method of presentation. I find that the presentation is bad and that you have to skip from one section to another section of the report in order to cover a particular subject. Except for that criticism, there is much content in the report and it will certainly be a very valuable reference work to all of us who are interested in the fishing industry. It sketches the history of the development of the fishing industry and, if I may, I would like to bring in a slightly party political note. I would just like to say that in this legislation which is before us today we are repealing existing legislation. It is interesting to note that all the important legislation which has to do with the fishing industry was introduced under the former United Party Government. One thinks of the Rock Lobster Export Act of 1940 and the Sea Fisheries Act of 1940. There have been subsequent amendments of course, but one also thinks of the Sea Fisheries Industry Development Act of 1944. I think that even the Sealing and Fisheries Ordinance of South-West Africa in 1949 was introduced by a United Party Government, although I am not quite certain of this. Reference is made in this report to many shortcomings in the various sectors of the industry, which exploit the living resources of the sea. I think the hon. the Minister has already taken some steps to improve the situation, because before the end of last year he had in fact given a higher status to the Division of Sea Fisheries and has now become known as the “Sea Fisheries Branch” of the Division of Industries of the Department of Economic Affairs. It is presided over by a director who is the chief official and under him—I must say that this is a most important step—there is a deputy director who is in charge of research. He in turn is assisted by an assistant director, who is charged with the responsibility for environmental study, physical, chemical and biological oceanography. Then there is a further assistant director, who specializes in fisheries biology, and yet another assistant director who deals with matters pertaining to South-West Africa. There is a fourth assistant director, who is in fact not responsible to the deputy director but to the director himself as regards resource management and control. His duties are mainly administrative and include responsibility for the work of the marine superintendent of the department and his inspectors.

I mention these things because many of the aspects I have referred to are mentioned in the Bill we are about to discuss. I think it is fair to say that there appears to be insufficient co-ordination between the multiplicity of State and industrial institutions involved in the fishing industry. Apart from the Sea Fisheries Division, there is Fishcor, which falls under the Department of Industries, there is the Secretary for Industries plus his staff, there is the Minister of Economic Affairs and his staff, there is the Fisheries Development Advisory Council of South Africa and there is the Fisheries Development Advisory Board of South-West Africa. In this particular connection I should like to refer to paragraph 707 of the fishing report which deals with the work of “die Visserye-ontwikkelingsraad”—

Then, in paragraphs 708 and 709 the reasons are set out as to why the advisory committees are not working. Yet the legislation before us proposes the establishment of either a joint advisory committee or the retention of the existing advisory committee in the Republic and a separate one in South-West Africa.

In paragraph 709 the commission says—

This is precisely what I am worrying about. Under the present legislation we are going to find ourselves in exactly the same position of an advisory committee for South Africa and perhaps another for South-West Africa, or alternatively a joint advisory committee, which is not going to be dynamic and is not going to assist the Minister in the way that is envisaged in this report.

I referred to the multiplicity of bodies dealing with the fishing industry. There are the boat limitation committees of South Africa and South-West Africa; there are the inshore fishing industry associations, such as, for example, the South African Fish Canners’ Association, which acts for all of the industry; then there is a canned fish marketing organization, the marketers, i.e. Federal Marine; the South African Bureau of Standards comes into the picture; then there are research bodies such as the Durban Institute of Oceanography; there are also the marine research departments of the universities; and below that on the lowest rungs of the ladder, there are the boat owners’ and the fishermen’s associations of one kind or another. My argument earlier was that, while we welcome this legislation —we think it is necessary and is an updating of existing legislation—it is my personal opinion that we should perhaps have waited and introduced more comprehensive legislation on the lines recommended in the Fishing Commission report. Be that as it may, the main recommendations of the report are, firstly, a central fisheries board and, secondly, that the research functions of the Sea Fisheries Division should be divorced from the administrative functions of the Sea Fisheries Division. I could not agree with them more! It is vitally important that the Sea Fisheries Division be given its head in the field of research; it must not be tied down and burdened with administrative and managerial duties. The third important facet that appears from this report is that the purse-seine netting and rock-lobster netting industry should be streamlined, particularly in the spheres of marketing, production structure and fleet composition. The suggestion is also made that the handline industry should be consolidated and that there should be marketing improvements, including the marketing of seals. We have already had legislation before us which deals with the situation concerning seals and sea birds and I believe that that will bring about an improved situation. Reference was made during the course of that debate to the possibility of seals being marketed on a far greater scale than is the case at the moment.

What is the merit of a Central Fisheries Board as opposed to the advisory boards we are setting up in terms of this legislation? I think it would evolve from the existing boards and councils of South-West Africa and that it would be a centralized and a stronger board than will be the case under this legislation, which envisages the retention of two separate organizations, the advisory council for South Africa and the advisory board for South-West Africa. It would have a permanent secretariat, and the hon. the Minister referred in his speech to the fact that there would be costs involved in the creation and retention of a permanent secretariat. Such a central fisheries board would be an advisory body and a forum for all of those who are involved not only in research in the fishing industry, but also in development and exploitation. I feel, most important of all, that such a board, a strong centralized board, would co-ordinate the demands of the different sectors of the industry and make realistic policy proposals to the Minister. In fact, as was said in S.A. Shipping News in an article that I read recently, it was hoped that such a board would play both “a dynamic and a directive role with the Minister”. It should not, according to the suggestion in the report and also in Shipping News, have executive powers, but the strength of a centralized board would be that it would have direct access to the Minister. The Minister himself would remain ultimately responsible as the highest authority in respect of fishery administration in South Africa.

As to the sea fisheries branch, if these recommendations were to come about, it would be split into a scientific department and an administrative department. I have already briefly referred to the necessity for splitting these two aspects of the work of that fisheries division. As I see this legislation, it is neither one thing nor the other. It is unquestionably a step in the right direction; it is a consolidating measure; it has retained, I think, the best of the previous legislation and has embodied it in this legislation. At the same time it is introducing one or two new facets. But it has not gone the whole hog. I do not think it has considered in sufficient detail the recommendations that were made and the detailed work that was done by that commission.

I want to quote briefly this afternoon the situation as regards research because I think it is so important that the Minister should never lose sight of the fact that one of the most harmful features of our fishing industry today is the apparent absence of thorough research at all levels. If he reads the South West African report under the chairmanship of Mr. A. H. du Plessis, he will see a reference to the fact that they are completely dissatisfied with the research work in regard to the industry being done in South Africa. Of course, the South-West African fisheries administration has come under our wing here in the Republic since 1969 and one of the other purposes of the legislation before us is to bring the Republic and South-West together in fishery administration and research. But here they express in this report considerable alarm at the absence of adequate research in South-West Africa. They say, for example, on page 47—

Then we move on to the interim report on research, issued by our Fishing Commission a couple of years ago. This is what they say:

It was on the strength of this interim report on research and the interim reports on the pelagic fishing industry and on the rock lobster industry that drastic steps had to be taken by the Minister to cut back the production in both of those spheres. So, once again, I bring to his attention the vital necessity for him to see that proper research facilities are available within his department, and that a determined effort is made, with the necessary money being provided, to undertake research into various aspects of the fishing industry. In the rock lobster interim report again there are clear statements that research is absent and that the situation is dangerous. As a result of this report, very stringent steps were taken by the Minister. In the case of the interim report on the pelagic fishing industry, the situation is exactly the same. As a result of inadequate research, control measures, supervision and managerial measures, the pelagic fishing industry was brought to its knees and that is a matter which I have referred to on a number of occasions.

As regards the Bill itself, I find no fault in the definition of “advisory council”. I have already referred to what I think is an unsatisfactory situation, namely the existence of two bodies, the Advisory Board in South-West and the Advisory Council in South Africa. I wonder if the Minister will not, in the course of his reply, supply the reasons why he thinks it will not be better to have at least a central advisory board for both the Territory of South-West and the Republic, even if he will not go as far in this legislation as he will in due course, namely to establish a Central Fisheries Board, to which I have already referred.

I also find no fault in the definition of “factory”. I welcome the extension of the definition. I think it is very necessary. In regard to the Fisheries Advisory Council, reference has been made by the hon. member for Parktown to possible abuse in the appointment, in the discretion of the Minister, of people to that council. I hope that the Minister will give us some guidelines this afternoon as to the kinds of persons, and their capacities, whom he hopes to appoint to the council.

As regards the advisory committees, we have had the reasurance that in fact, in clause 3, the Minister has in view through them extended powers for boat-licensing committees. I was wondering about that.

Clause 4, which provides for the establishment of fishing harbours, is really the regularization of a de facto situation. The situation at the moment is that the department does establish, create and find, when necessary, the fishing harbours; this has certainly been the position in recent times.

I welcome very much the provision in this legislation for the appointment of honorary fisheries officers. It must be clearly stated that their powers are set out and circumscribed in clause 6(1 )(b) and (d). [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Simonstown has given us a very exhaustive outline of the whole of the fishing industry. He has made a study of the report and he has put forward the views of this side and described the technical background of the industry. Sir, when one reads this Bill—and I was connected with the fishing industry years ago—one feels that this is a case of closing the stable door after the horse had gone. Sir, at one stage we had along the coast of the Western Cape one of the richest fishing grounds in the world. Of course, this did not just suddenly happen. In this connection we must think of the research that was done by the old research ship Afrikaner and one thinks of the Meteor, the German research vessel that was here before the Second World War, but the fact remains that we did have prolific fishing grounds off the Cape and South-West African coasts. An enormous amount of salted snoek was exported from South West Africa every year. I do not think it was ever appreciated that the world would invade the fishing grounds of our coasts, but modern science got to work and one saw the advent of these modern diesel trawlers that can travel 10 000 to 12 000 miles without refuelling, equipped with modern freezing facilities. Today we have some of the most modern fishing fleets of the world on our doorstep. Sir, when one looks at the “longline” fishing boats in the bay, waiting to offload their cargoes, one realizes what is happening. I counted 25 to 30 of them today. We in South Africa were not really geared to cope with this situation, with the result that our fishing grounds have been all but ruined. Whereas at one stage one could get stockfish—or hake, as it is called —within 20 or 30 miles of Cape Town in such quantities that the catches had to be curtailed so as not to flood the market, today the trawlers have to go out very much further and stay away for anything from a month to six weeks. Sir, once these locusts have fished out our fishing grounds, they will move on again. Fish, as we know, will only thrive where there is food for them, and fish food has been cleared up through the indiscriminate use of nets. These boats not only catch the fish, but they catch the plankton and freeze it. What they do with it I do not know. Sir, probably it is not generally known, but when we did not have this competition from the outside world, it was always an offence to dump fish offal into the sea. As a matter of fact, at one stage, if you brought in so many tons of fish cleaned on the trawler, you had to account for so many tons of offal, otherwise there was an investigation; I think it was realized years ago that if you wanted to ruin your fishing grounds, all you had to do was to dump the offal into the sea. Sir, one has a feeling that this Bill is aimed not only at the white fish industry, but that it is mainly aimed at the crawfish industry, or the “kreef” industry. When you see what is happening today with the modern trawlers and fishing boats from France, and the live fish that is caught, packed and sent overseas, one realizes that these people are not really concerned with whether they fish out our grounds or not; they have found a very lucrative fishing ground and they are making a lot of money out of it. But there is no two ways about it that something will have to be done. I notice that in this Bill before us provision is made for periodic closing of our fish sanctuaries. Our fish and crayfish sanctuaries have been closed from time to time but clearly it has not been for sufficiently long in order to re-establish the grounds. One must realize that not only is the crayfish gone but the fish-food has gone as well. There has been indiscriminate diving for mussels and other food and it will take a long time before these are re-established. If the supply of fish goes down while that is being re-established that is just too bad. Otherwise we will have to see the total disappearance of crayfish from the local scene here.

The penalty clauses are severe but I think that is only correct because there is nothing better than a severe penalty to prevent people from contravening our law. I think we have to make the penalties very severe. It is practically impossible to catch these people because they mainly work at night. You find that the ones who work off the rocks, work at night and you have to have your patrol boats out and the only time you can really catch these individuals who fish indiscriminately in our various crayfish sanctuaries, is when they bring the catch in. Only then can you take action. As was said quite rightly by the hon. member for Parktown, crayfish has become almost as valuable as diamonds, so valuable that one just does not know whether one can afford to eat it or whether one has to put it in a museum.

The hon. member for Simonstown was talking about research. I think there is no two ways about it that we have not paid the attention to research that we should have. I think we have had the equipment, and I would like to pay tribute to the Fishing Development Corporation and their allied staff for the wonderful work they have done. They have had great difficulty in obtaining staff even to man their ships. That is something I think the hon. the Minister will have to give attention to.

The provision of funds for research is very necessary. We have had in this country only recently some of the most modern research vessels in the world from America and other countries, and I just wonder whether the results of the research they have done along our coasts are not available to us. I would also like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consult our universities. The Cape Town University has a research vessel which is very costly to maintain. It is a very well-equipped vessel and I would like to ask the Minister to see whether he cannot co-ordinate the work of his department much closer with that of our universities. I do not want to mention the University of Cape Town only, although that is on the site, but there are other universities too interested in fishing research. I think the Minister should avail himself of the facilities the universities have and the talents available there to do research into our fishing industries. The hon. member for Simonstown spoke about markets for our fish. Although we have a very substantial population we have a small White population and I can remember the time when it was difficult to get a Bantu to eat fish. Today, of course, the situation is changing rapidly and the Bantu are becoming a very big market for our fish. I know there has been great difficulty in marketing fish in this country and we exported substantial quantities, strangely enough, to Australia. But one must realize that among the countries of the world there are many who do not have the fish that we have along our coasts. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in so far as international agreements are concerned. I know that there are international agreements in so far as the fishing industry is concerned. The question of territorial waters is of the utmost importance especially if one takes into account the trouble which they are experiencing in Finland at the moment. They have extended their territorial waters to a considerable extent and they are experiencing difficulties in patrolling. I think we in South Africa will have to take a serious look at this position, because I am convinced that as far as the fishing of white fish is concerned—this is borne out when one talks to pilots of planes flying up and down the coast—these foreign trawlers are coming in fairly close. I am fairly certain that during the nights, under cover of darkness, they are fishing within our territorial waters.

I should also like to refer to the question of pilchard fishing. The export of fishmeal by our pilchard industry and our canning industry in South-West Africa are two aspects which require research. There is an opinion and thought that the heavy fishing by the pilchard industry and the type of fish that we are catching are having certain effects on our white fish and other fish resources. Quite a lot of the so-called “pilchards” which are caught today are really the fish food of the white fish that our industry catches. I think this is something which will have to be considered very carefully. It is no good merely to have a commission with the terms of reference to go into the question. One must study these aspects by means of research. We have our universities and we have the necessary boats. What we require is the money. I see that there is provision for the payment of levies by the industry, but in order to preserve what I think may be a giant industry of South Africa, I feel that the hon. the Minister should go much further. He should talk to the hon. the Minister of Finance because we must get more money for purposes of research in so far as our fishing industry is concerned.

I have dealt with the nets and the mesh and I now want to discuss the Bill further. I should like to support the hon. member for Parktown who said that we were now passing all our powers to the department which will be empowered to prescribe everything by means of regulations. It is one of those things which we see more and more in legislation.

I now want to refer to clause 10(1)(d) in terms of which the Minister may make regulations prohibiting the supply of ships’ stores, excluding medical supplies, to visiting ships that come in for supplies. I think we must be very careful in the application! of this provision. There are many people! who rely on this type of trade. I refer to the employees of ship chandlers. I do not! think that you are going to stop anybody! fishing off your shore with this type of? penalty. They will find some other means of securing supplies and in the meantime our people will be affected. It is no solution to cut off our nose to spite our face.

The licensing of boats is an aspect which has caused this side of the House a lot of worry and I think most people who have something to do with the fishing industry too. What I have in mind by “licensing” is to grant them permission to catch certain types of fish and to allow them to operate from our fishing harbours. We must watch this so that we do not create monopolies. The small individual who wishes to establish himself in the fishing business is overawed by these enormous fishing concerns which have a habit of amalgamating overnight. This places the small man in a very difficult position. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister that he takes this into consideration when he hands out licences. I am pleased to see that where the Bill provides for the registration of fishing boats, the relevant legislation which provides for safety at sea will be applied. I do not think that that legislation goes far enough. Strangely enough the Merchant Shipping Act does not cover fishing boats of the size that we are using along our coasts. One often sees pictures in magazines publicising the fishing industry, where they show a boat loaded with pilchards to such an extent that the boat has no free board. Since the boat is insured they can say goodbye to the boat should it go down. But that is not the argument. There is a crew of 15 to 16 people on that boat and their lives are endangered by this practice. I think that is an item to which the hon. the Minister and his department should give serious consideration; they should give serious consideration to the over-loading of these particular pilchard trawlers. If you look at the record of fishing boats, Sir, that have been lost along our coasts, you will find that the main cause is just overloading. They load their boats full of fish before they bring their load to the factory without any concern whatsoever whether the boat goes down or not. When they strike the first heavy swell, the boat is swamped and down it goes. All right, let them lose the boat; let them lose the catch, but there is probably insufficient time for the crew to get their lifebelts on and there is a possibility that they may lose their life. I think that the hon. the Minister has to give very serious consideration to this aspect. In the definition clause, clause 1, I see that the hon. the Minister defines “fisherman” as follows—

That defines what a “fisherman” is. Further on in the Bill reference is made to “any person”. I still do not know what the difference is between “person” and “fisherman”. When does a person become a fisherman and vice versa? In this Bill we have provisions for prosecuting persons and not fishermen. There is a lack of clarity between “persons” and “fishermen”.

Then there is another question I would like to raise. It is in regard to the controlling of fishing harbours. We have the peculiar position that the hon. the Minister of Transport controls the bigger harbours, and that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in his capacity as the Minister of the Department of Commerce, controls our fishing harbours. There is no problem in regard to the smaller fishing boats, but if you look at Hout Bay harbour today you would see some very substantial boats there. I am wondering whether this particular department has the facility to control the harbours in the event of there being these very big boats? There are no customs and immigration clearances at such harbours even though they cover miles and miles of sea. I am just wondering whether it is wise to have this division in the administration of our harbours. You have fishing boats coming into Cape Town harbour and it is also a very big commercial harbour. You have the widest possible control there. Cape Town harbour falls under the control of the Minister of Transport.

As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill has come a little late; the Horse has left the stable! I feel sure that if we are to re-establish the whole of the fishing industry, it is going to take a lot of research to do this.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister made his address this afternoon, there was barely a quorum of members in the House. I wondered whether we would not have had a larger audience if the subject of the Bill had been to provide for the control of the agricultural industry and matters related thereto. You see. Sir, the fishing industry has to do with a way of living which affects very closely those of us who live in the Cape. In fact, the laissez faire period of the fishing industry originated with the catching of fish by the Strandlopers, then by the Hottentots, then by the Portuguese, and then by the early Dutch settlers. When I woke up this morning at my home in Hout Bay, and I looked out of my window, the snoeking fleet was just setting out to sea in the early dawn; hundreds of these snoeking vessels were snaking out towards Cape Point and Llandudno. It occurred to me then that, after the passage of this Bill, a certain way of life at the Cape will have gone for ever. When I listened to the address of the hon. the Minister, I felt that it might be as well to put on record not what we look to for the future, but just briefly what we are giving up of the past. On my way to town I passed the coast of Llandudno at about 9 o’clock and there there were some 200 or 300 snoeking boats catching fish as fast as they could and the fish sparkled in the sunshine as they were being pulled in from the sea. Then when I got to Clifton, I remembered the early days when we youngsters at Clifton would catch crayfish, which have been discussed today, from our canoes, boil them in paraffin cans and almost give them away for nothing to the hotels. It was Lawrence G. Green who chronicled the association of the Tavern of the Seas with the fishing industry. He mentions the romantic west coast dorps of Saldanha. Langebaan, Laaiplek and Velddrift, and others right up to Walvis Bay. He mentions the east coast ports of Hermanus. Gansbaai, and on to Cape Agulhas and Struisbaai and Arniston. The public in the Cape have always been very closely associated with the fishing industry. In his stories Lawrence Green makes mention of the days when snoek ran not in their thousands, but in their millions. In fact, he mentions the year 1907 when the greatest massed run of snoek that ever took place, was recorded. The snoek came into the Table Bay harbour in their batallions and the price dropped to a halfpenny per snoek. He also mentions the recipes which were used by the old Cape Malays and by the Coloureds. He mentions snoek biltong and snoek being used in curried stews in the place of mutton. He mentions the blatjangs that were used with snoek. In fact, it shows that in relation to the Bill we are passing today, the Cape has known a period of laissez faire, when those of us who were privileged to live here, used the Cape waters as a way of life. There were no licences. The slaves fished, farmers fished, the residents fished; in fact, fish were there in abundance and in plenty. But, when the hon. the Minister read his Second Reading speech today, it was a neat document, the clauses fitting nicely together; it was a departmentally produced speech and I wondered whether the only sector that were not mentioned, were the public themselves. Today we know that, because of the regimentation of the industry, because of developments not specifically in the interests of the public but in the interests of that god that we call “money”, and in the interests of the export market and foreign exchange, this Bill will provide, with our support, for the regimentation of the industry so that neatly defined fish of all species, as we see it in the Bill, are neatly gathered in the boats of a large industry and transferred to the factories of organized industry and from the factories of organized industry to a national export corporation. Eventually we find that the crawfish we used to enjoy at the price of six for half-a-crown will land up in the markets of New York and in the restaurants of New York where the tails will sell for nine dollars each. But what of the individual in the Cape? The scarcity of fresh fish for the table has never been greater. Certainly fish is no longer the staple diet of the non-White. We no longer see dry doppers being carried into the country by the “visryers” in their horse and donkey carts. Certainly there are no longer the fish markets that we used to know in Roggebaai, in Dock Road and in Hanover Street, where every type of fish was freely available to the local housewife. Today this Bill contains provisions that will ensure that it is almost an offence for an individual to catch a fish. Certainly there is no small enterprise that can collect lobsters and sell them on the quayside. Today, in fact, the public can no longer have access to the wharves of the Cape Town harbour during weekends to see the fish being unloaded. Everything is regimented. Today there is hardly a fresh fish retail market within sight of the sea. There is no longer the Dock Road market with the sea almost lapping up to the pavement of Dock Road, no longer the Roggebaai market, no longer the Hanover Street market. It is for that reason that I make a plea today to the Minister that in the application of these regulations, which make him almost all-powerful as regards the catching, processing and marketing of fish, he bears in mind, too, that apart from the earning of foreign exchange, there are inhabitants along our coast-line, the people of Cape Town and Saldanha and the other coastal villages, who should still have the right to regard rock lobster, as the hon. member for Salt River said, not as a museum piece, but as something that is harvested in our Cape waters, a product of the Cape, and that at least some of our more exotic fish and of our crayfish particularly, better known as “kreef”, should still be available in some quantity on the local markets and that we should not exploit every one of our national assets merely with regard to money, the export of our products and thereby the obtaining of foreign exchange. I think that this should be said, because people in the Cape feel more and more that we are becoming so large company-orientated that the small individual, be he the boat-owner or the small fishing company, is today in the hands of controls, usually regarded as being Government controls, and that the right of the individual to express himself as an individual is diminishing.

I also want to make special reference— and I hope the hon. the Minister will give this his personal attention—to clause 13(1)(k) and (1) regulating “the control and management of any fishing harbour …"and also “regulating, controlling or prohibiting the use of a fishing harbour or any part thereof by any boats or vessels other than boats registered in terms of this Act”. I do this, because during the years in which the hon. the Minister has taken over control of fishing harbours and the development of fishing harbours under the Department of Commerce and Industries, we have seen a number of harbours which previously were not interfere with by the department and were therefore available for private use by yacht clubs, or boating clubs and fishing clubs, fenced in, understandably so, in order to regulate the catching of fish and the disposal thereof more effectively. I want to refer particularly to the harbours of Saldanha, Hout Bay, Hermanus and the harbour at Kalk Bay. There is a growing industry in the yachting field today. This sport is growing so fast that it can no longer be ignored. This is a trend throughout the world. If the hon. the Minister has been to Hout Bay during recent months, he will have seen that every weekend tens of yachts are being launched from the beach and I do not refer to the expensive R¼ million deep-sea fishing sporting boats that are owned by the wealthy. I refer to the non-keel boats, the dinghies that are sailed by youngsters, that are trailed to the sea, launched off the beaches and then removed again. These boats cannot be operated unless there is a harbour, so that the vehicles can be run in and the boats taken off their trailers and then sailed.

Since the Hout Bay harbour has been fenced in, and because the harbour master applies the terms of the Act strictly, a yacht is a boat and must be a fishing boat or else it may not use the facilities. Whatever the type of boat, a fishing-boat levy has to be paid. In the early days, Hout Bay had no harbour. It was a magnificent stretch of beach. There was an old hulk moored there which had been abandoned and one could launch one’s boats openly from any part of the beach. Sir, Hout Bay is not only a fishing harbour which has been greatly enriched since the arrival of the Minister’s department there and since the building of the harbour, but basically it is a scenic, residential and tourist harbour. There is no need for the industry to clash in any way or create resentment from either the residents or tourists, or those in the Cape who go to use this lovely natural beauty spot. I would merely ask the Minister to give serious consideration to making available to the yachting fraternity a small area for a yacht club in that harbour and to make available the area in the vicinity of the Shending beach for them to launch their boats. He should recognize as well that, where there are yachts only, this sporting activity takes place basically on Saturday, Sundays and public holidays and not throughout the week, so that the yachts need not in any way conflict with or disturb the activities of the fishing industry. Yachtsmen are basically co-operative people; they have no desire to conflict with organized industry.

Order! What does that have to do with this Bill?

I am merely appealing to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that in this specific case, where he controls harbours …

That point can be raised under the relevant Vote.

I respect that, Sir. I would ask the Minister to give that matter his attention.

In conclusion, I will say that the penalties that are applied within the terms of this Bill are so strict that they can be frightening. Where the penalty of R7 500 can be applied in the case of the illegal catching of fish, I would assume that this would only be in the case of organized fishing boats which are pirating fish under illegal conditions, and that this maximum penalty would be applied to them where they are virtually robbing a resource of the sea. I trust that it will not be applied to persons who have the right to catch a limited number of fish, whether it is crawfish or sea fish.

But within the terms of this Bill, we recognize that the industry today has become as important to the country as has the agricultural industry or the mining industry, and we do support the orderly control of the industry in the interest of South Africa. I conclude by saying that I would again appeal to the Minister to pay due regard to the interests of the man in the street and not only to the interests of overseas export industries.

Mr. Speaker, several hon. members called attention to the importance of the fishing industry. This was emphasized by the hon. member for Simonstown in particular. I think none of us can find any fault with that, and for that reason it is therefore correct for us to do everything in our power to preserve this valuable industry for South Africa. Sir, I am going to reply as cursorily as possible to the various points raised here. I want to start with the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member for Parktown commented on my being granted the power under clause 2 to appoint a fisheries advisory council or two councils. He pointed out that provision was being made in clause 2(viii) for the appointment of “such other persons as the Minister may determine”. But this clause provides, in the first instance, that the Secretary shall be the chairman and the director the deputy-chairman, and that at least nine other members shall be appointed from various parties, seven of whom are mentioned. In other words, two others are still to be added. Sir, this industry is, as you know, a fluid one, and it is being felt, to start with, that there may be other bodies whose representatives may be very useful on such a fisheries advisory council. Circumstances may arise which may make it necessary later on— but, over and above that, I think this is also very desirable—for the door to be left open in that respect in the event of persons having a great deal of valuable experience concerning the fishing industry, being available for appointment to such a council. In such a case the Minister would at least have the power to do this.

The hon. member for Simonstown stressed the fact that the most significant and important recommendations of the commission, as he called them, i.e. with regard to the establishment of a central council, were not being embodied in the legislation, and he expressed the view that this advisory council would not serve the same purpose or would not have the same ability to give the necessary advise in regard to matters relating to the fishing industry. I want to point out that clause 2 specifically provides that prior to appointing the various persons to this council, the Minister shall consult with these bodies which are mentioned here, and I most certainly think that these bodies will at least recommend good persons to the Minister for serving on this advisory council. Whereas the hon. member for Simonstown spoke about this matter, I want to say that for the present we feel that it is appropriate for us to proceed with the establishment of the advisory council or advisory councils in question.

Then there is another important factor to which the hon. member for Omaruru referred, and that is the question whether we are going to have one or two advisory councils right from the start. My own personal opinion—and this is also the way I am being advised—is that the circumstances relating to the fishing industry in South-West Africa differs so fundamentally from those along the west coast of the Republic of South Africa and other parts as well, not only the west coast, that it may be advisable to proceed initially at least, until circumstances change, with these two advisory councils. I think that for the present at least the two advisory councils would serve a better purpose than the one large council to which the hon. member referred and which was recommended by the commission.

The hon. member for Parktown also referred to clause 3 and the appointment of boat limitation committees. The hon. member for Simonstown was rather astonished at these being specifically boat limitation committees, but if he looks at clause 3(1), he will see that it explicitly refers to “any authority under section 8(3)”, and clause 8(3) makes provision for the licensing of boats. Actually, this is, not a new provision; it is in fact an old one.

The hon. member for Parktown also referred to clause 6 and to clauses 10, 11 and 13. He said I was getting too many powers in terms of those clauses. But if the hon. member were now to make an analysis of these clauses, he would see that they really do not contain anything new. In fact, the hon. member for Simonstown said these things were all established by the old U.P. Government in 1940 and 1944. Indeed, in looking at clause 6, the hon. member will find that the whole of page 8 consists of existing measures. It is only on page 10 of the English text that one finds something new. On page 10 paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) and subsection (2) are new, but the rest of clause 6 also consists of existing measures. In other words, there is in fact nothing new. The same applies in respect of the other clauses to which the hon. member referred. Let us page to clause 10. In clause 10 too there is, so to speak, nothing new; paragraphs (b) and (c) merely comprise more specific powers, and (d) has been inserted in order to enable us to deal with foreign boats. But the clause to which he actually had objections, is the regulations clause, clause 13. In the regulations clause paragraph (j) on page 18 is the only new one and the rest are all existing provisions in existing legislation. Therefore I think it is incorrect to say that so many powers which did not exist before are now being given to the Minister. In fact, it is merely a case of streamlining having been effected here and there and of circumstances having made it necessary for powers to be given to the Minister which he did not have before.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens also referred to the maximum penalties being laid down in clause 16. For instance, there is the amount of R7 500 which may be imposed as a maximum fine. This is a considerably increased amount; it used to be R1 000. But I do want to point out that this is a maximum penalty and that the magistrate still has his discretion in terms of which he may reduce it considerably if he so deems fit.

I have already replied to the reference made by the hon. member for Omaruru to the advisory councils. He feels that initially there should rather be at least two advisory councils, one for South-West Africa and one for the Republic. He also referred to the officers, who have to be selected carefully. I quite agree with him. Then the hon. member referred to clause 7, and he said he hoped that such a transaction, the sale of a boat, could not be prohibited under clause 7. I just want to point out that the sale is not really the matter over which we want to exercise control. Clause 7 is actually a forerunner of clause 8. It is for the purposes of licensing boats under clause 8 that clause 7 appears in the legislation. Clause 7 deals with the registration of fishing boats and with the cancellation or suspension of the registration thereof. What is dealt with in clause 8, is the licensing of boats registered under clause 7(1). But the sales are not the matter about which we are concerned. It is merel the question whether the necessary room and capacity are there so that such boats may be licensed.

The hon. member also referred to separate control for South-West Africa and for the Republic. I should like to refer the hon. member to clause 11(e) on page 16, which was specifically inserted there in order that it will be possible to exercise separate control over South-West Africa and the Republic.

The hon. member for South Coast was most concerned about clause 23(1)(c) where it is now being provided that the coast of Natal which falls under the Parks Board has been excluded from this legislation, and that the coast of the Bantu homelands situated in Natal shall not be excluded from this legislation. I think the hon. member, if I heard him correctly, agrees with me—we have also had the opportunity, though, of discussing this matter privately on a previous occasion—that under the circumstances there is really no alternative. We must have a body which must control this coast until such time as those Bantu areas gain their independence. After that has happened, further negotiations will most probably have to be conducted with such a body. It is therefore proper that it has to be the Government which will exercise supervision in that case and will conduct the negotiations. Furthermore, the Government would have to be the body causing the handing over to be effected should these matters be handed over to those Bantu areas in due course.

The hon. member asked that the Parks Board be consulted in this instance because, as he said, the Parks Board had rendered very valuable services in Natal in the past. I do not wish to find any fault with that. I admit and accept it. The hon. member said negotiations had to take place. Clause 15(3) specifically provides that a delegation of the powers in respect of these areas may only be effected after consultation with the department and with the approval of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I do not want to give any undertaking now, because it is difficult for me to give undertakings which I may later not be able to honour because of technical circumstances.

In so far as the hon. member for South Coast has problems, I think, however, that it will be possible to regulate these matters through negotiations and to discuss them on an administrative level. We envisage making use to a large extent of the Parks Board of Natal and its officials in doing certain work for us there and in exercising supervision. I would rather see us trying at a later stage to remedy by way of negotiations these things about which the hon. member for South Coast may not be feeling happy at the moment.

The hon. member for Simonstown is in complete agreement with us as far as the proposed disciplinary measures are concerned. Indeed, he feels in actual fact that these disciplinary measures must be severe, ns we are in fact providing by way of this legislation. For instance, we have increased the fines a great deal, and from now on they will be much more severe than is the case at present. Sometimes it is quite difficult to bring these people to book. When they are brought to book, these measures should not only be a punishment to those persons; in fact, they should also be a deterrent to those who could possibly commit the same deeds. In this matter the hon. member agrees with us.

I have already spoken about the question of a central council.

The hon. member also spoke about dumping. We have discussed this before, and during the discussion of the Commerce and Industries Votes last week I sounded a serious warning on the question of dumping along the coast of South-West Africa. This is a matter about which we are extremely concerned. To let such a valuable asset in the sea go to waste, is something we may not allow to happen. If we can succeed in bringing to book an person who indulges in this practice, we shall, as I said last week, definitely take steps against him.

May I put a question? Is dumping not perhaps attributable to the fact that there is in South-West Africa a percentage division between pilchards and other species of fish?

Of course, it is attributable to that. The arrangement that exists at the moment is that only a certain percentage, at present it is 50%, may be pilchards. Fifty per cent of the quota must comprise other species of fish, such as anchovies. The position is that when pilchards are plentiful, as is the case at the moment, the boats go out in order to catch pilchards. The arrangement is that once it has caught pilchards to the extent of 50% of its quota, it has to stop catching even though it may not have caught any other species of fish. Of course, in this process they try to catch as big a quantity as possible of the other species of fish so that the quota they have in pilchards may not exceed 50% of the total catch and so that they may also as nearly as possible catch other species of fish to the extent of the other 50% of their quota. In such cases the boats are sent out with instructions to catch other fish. When they have the fish in the net, they may discover for the first time that they are pilchards. In order that they may not exceed their quota, they dump the fish, because they received instruction to catch other species of fish and not pilchards. At this stage I do not wish to go into the various relations between the fishermen and the factories, but that is how the dumping takes place and these are the circumstances under which it is done.

What can be done in that regard?

Last week I said during the Committee Stage of the Budget debate that if such a fishing boat could be brought to book and it could be proved beyond doubt that this had taken place, we should consider cancelling that fisherman’s licence. We shall have to do something drastic and something serious, but it is not such an easy matter to bring such a person to book.

He often does not know what kind of fish are in the nets.

That is true, but once he has them in the net he should not dump them but bring them to factory, for if he dumps the catch the fish are dead. This does not only mean the destruction of a valuable asset, but also a contamination of the surroundings.

The hon. member for Simonstown, as well as the hon. member for Salt River, had a great deal to say about research. I do want to say, though, that a great deal of progress has been made in the sphere of research in recent times. Over the past four to five years, especially, we have purchased a great deal of apparatus and increased the establishment specifically with a view to doing research. In respect of the research in connection with the boat-building programme, it is being envisaged to spend more than R5 million. The first amount has already been placed on this year’s Estimates. A start has been made with the planning of a multi-purpose research boat for South-West Africa. A modern deep-sea research ship is being envisaged for the Republic. This boat will probably cost in the vicinity of R4 million. A great deal has already been done as far as research is concerned and, in addition, the research programme for the future is also being smartened up a great deal.

Could you say something about the patrol services?

No, I do not wish to comment now on the physical patrolling that is taking place, for I am not fully conversant with the latest developments.

The hon. member for Simonstown said in conclusion that the pelagic fishing industry was on its knees. I really cannot agree with that. Last year we had, as far as canning was concerned, the best year of all in South-West Africa. The fish were close to the coast and were brought into the harbours in a good condition. Practically all the fish could be canned.

More fish was canned, and that is all.

Yes, more fish was canned because the fish were plentiful, because the fish were close to the coast and because the fish were available. There is already every indication that we are going to have another record year this year. As a result we raised to a quota of 50% one-third of the quota which we initially determined last year. There is every indication that this will be the case, and I am not the one who says so, but the Financial Mail; the newspapers and the experts are saying so.

Beware of the English-language Press!

What about the Sunday Times?

All the people who are in the know, the experts, are saying that this year is going to be the best year the fishing industry ever had. All the indications are present. If, after last year’s trends and after what we have experienced up to now this year, it is true that the pelagic fishing industry is on its knees, it is absolutely inconsistent with the trends we have been experiencing up to now.

I said it had been brought to its knees.

Does the hon. member admit that at present the position is much better again? Of course we introduced restrictive measures. I must honestly say that to my mind these restrictive measures introduced by us had a tremendously beneficial effect on our fishing industry.

Could the hon. the Minister tell us what Dr. Lochner has to say about it?

Apparently the hon. member does not agree with what Dr. Lochner says.

The hon. member for Salt River spoke about the foreign fishing boats. It is true that this is quite a problem for us. That is why we are also a member of the convention in regard to sea fisheries for the south-eastern Atlantic Ocean. As regards foreign boats entering our harbours for transhipping fish for conveyance to the country of origin of the trawler concerned, this is being done by way of permits. However, I must point out that as a result of the fact that Russian boats and Russia’s satellites are to a large extent fishing here in our waters under the permit system, this is by no means under our control, and that we only have very limited control over these foreign boats in our fishing harbours. But we are a member of this convention, and there we are doing what we possibly can in order to ensure and protect our fishing resources.

The hon. member also spoke about research, to which I have already referred. I think he put forward a good idea, namely that more effective liaison be maintained with the various universities. He referred to the overloading of fishing boats. This is a matter which is partly our responsibility and partly that of the Railways. When such boats enter fishing harbours over which the Department of Industries has control, it is our responsibility and we attend to the matter and exercise supervision in that regard, and when such boats enter the commercial harbours, such as the one in the Cape Town harbour, they are the responsibility of the Railways.

The hon. member discussed the definition of a fisherman. At this stage I do not wish to elaborate on it, except to say that it is a much more limited definition than that of, for instance, “any person”.

The hon. member for Gardens referred here to bygone days, when we could still buy a snoek for ten cents or even for half a cent, as he said. At the time snoek was still the staple diet of a very large part of Cape Town during a specific time of the year. I am afraid that those days are past. All that we can do now, is just to refer back to and discuss them every now and then, for they will probably never come back.

Then the hon. member also raised a very important point here, and I want to conclude with that. He asked that provision be made or facilities be created for private vessels in the fishing harbours. This is an idea which we can investigate. I shall definitely have research done in order to determine what the position in our fishing harbours is. The hon. member referred to Hermanus, Hout Bay, Kalk Bay and others. I happened to be in Hermanus on a certain day when a request came in from a private boat to enter the harbour, but there was simply no mooring space in the harbour. This is of course a frequent occurrence. These harbours are not big enough and the facilities do not exist. I think we may in fact consider creating more effective facilities there just for getting these vessels into the water and not necessarily for berthing purposes. I shall definitely follow up this idea and see what we can do in this regard.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As explained during the consideration of the Sea Fisheries Bill, it is being envisaged, through the amendment by this Bill of the Fishing Industry Development Act, 1944 (Act 44 of 1944), to ensure that the Minister will be able to exercise effective control over the distribution of fish in the Republic and in South-West Africa. Hon. members are aware that during recent years my department and I have, to an increasing extent, caused the emphasis to be placed on the maintenance of a sound balance between the conservation and the exploitation of our marine resources, and that steps have been taken to determine exploitation levels on a scientific basis. In addition to this Government policy has been geared to promoting sound and orderly development as far as possible in all the branches of the fishing industry.

For the successful protection of our valuable marine resources such as rock lobster, market control is as important as control over catches to prevent illegal catches from reaching the market.

Mr. Speaker, by means of the powers requested in the Sea Fisheries Bill, and the amendments envisaged in this Bill, it will be made possible for my department to achieve the declared object.

†The principles contained in the proposed Bill are as follows:

Clause 2 makes it clear that the establishment, maintenance and management of fishing harbour facilities are subject to approval by the Minister. In effect this amendment provides for maintaining the status quo as the corporation in practice always erects and finances such facilities on request by the Minister from funds provided for this purpose by the Government.

Clause 3 provides for the deletion of an out of date reference to the “Department of Commerce and Industries”.

Clauses 4 and 5 provide for the substitution of the expressions “one pound” and “five thousand pounds” with “two rand” and “ten thousand rand”, where they occur in sections 12 and 16 of the existing Act.

Clause 6 provides for the repealing of sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27 of the existing Act. These sections deal with matters relating to the establishment of the existing Fisheries Development Advisory Council, of controlled areas, local advisory committees for controlled areas and the registration of fishermen and fishing boats.

Provision for the continued existence of the Fisheries Advisory Council and the registration and licensing of fishing boats are now made in the Sea Fisheries Bill as these measures are considered to fall within the ambit of resource control.

Provision for the establishment of controlled areas, local advisory committees for controlled areas as well as the registration of fishermen are provisions which have been in disuse since this Act was promulgated, and as the implementation of these provisions has no practical value under present circumstances the deletion thereof is suggested.

Clause 7 provides for the control by the Minister of the export of fish or fish products. The provisions of this clause are to a very large extent based on similar provisions of the existing Rock Lobster Export Act, 1940 (Act 9 of 1940).

Clauses 8(1), (2) and (3) are to a large extent based on the existing provisions of section 28 of the Act. These provisions have, however, been extended to make it possible to regulate more efficiently the processing of fish as well as the marketing thereof overseas and, where necessary, also locally, in respect of those species of fish where such an extent of control is deemed necessary. These powers will, therefore, only be used in respect of specific species such as rock lobster where it is desirable that control be exercised over the quantities packed and to ensure that marketing takes place through the acknowledged associations of quota holders.

Clause 8(4) is a new provision to enable the Minister to acquire, for administrative purposes, information from any person who-carries on a business as a dealer, importer or exporter of fish.

The provisions under clause 8(5) are similar to the existing provisions under sub-sections (j) to (m) of section 11(1) of Act No. 10 of 1940.

Clause 9 provides for the increase of the maximum levy that may be imposed by the State President for the benefit of the corporation from one twentieth of a penny to one cent, for the substitution of the expression “pound of weight” with “kilogram of the mass” and to provide the State President with the power to exempt certain classes of person from payment of the levy.

Section 31 of the Act is repealed by clause 10 as it is contemplated that the fisheries inspectors and officials appointed in terms of the Sea Fisheries Act will also perform the inspection services which will be required for the purposes of this legislation.

Clause 11 provides for the extension of the powers of fisheries inspectors to enable them to undertake the necessary inspection services for the enforcement of this legislation. This clause also makes provision that inspectors and officials performing any powers in terms of the Bill shall be regarded as peace officers as defined in section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1955 (Act 56 of 1955).

Clause 12 makes provision for a number of consequential amendments and also provides for the increase of the maximum fine to an amount of R7 500 or five years imprisonment, bringing penalties in line with those provided for in the Sea Fisheries Bill.

Clause 13 provides for certain consequential amendments and determines that the court in the case of a first contravention may, and in the case of a secodd contravention, shall declare forfeited to the State any fish, vessel or vehicle in respect of which an offence has been committed.

Clause 14 provides for a consequential amendment and for the deletion of a presumption which has become redundant as the provision of the Act are now also made applicable by the Bill in respect of the catching of fish by trawling.

Clause 15 provides for certain consequential amendments and makes provision for the increase of the maximum penalty that may be prescribed for the contravention of a regulation issued in terms of the Act, of not exceeding an amount of R1 000 or imprisonment for a period of one year.

Clause 16 also provides for certain consequential amendments and the application of the provisions of the Act in those Bantu homelands which abut on the sea in Natal. The present Act is not applicable in these areas and are made applicable in terms of this clause with a view to making possible the promotion of a fishing industry for the benefit of the populations of the homelands.

Clause 17 provides for the application of the Act in South-West Africa, while clause 18 provides for a consequential amendment of the long title of the Act. Clause 19 contains the short title.

Mr. Speaker, these, in short, are the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill amends the Fishing Industries Development Act and is really a sister Bill of the Bill we discussed earlier this afternoon. It is a Bill which does quite a lot of cleaning up and toughening up of the existing legislation. The hon. the Minister has said that the penalties are the same as those provided for in the Bill we passed this afternoon. Yes, but these are very new. It is in this Bill where a penalty which used to be £100 or one year’s imprisonment has been amended to R7 500 or five years’ imprisonment. But again, as this is the maximum penalty, and there is no minimum penalty, we accept the position.

I think that the real purpose of the Bill is best found in the change in the long title, which now includes “control over the processing, disposal, purchase and export of fish”. We support the Bill.

I have only one other comment to make. The hon. member for South Coast asked me, in his absence to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister that his remarks with regard to the previous Bill apply equally to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage there is probably not much more to say, but I should just like to emphasize certain parts of the Bill. In the first place I want to refer to the control and conservation of our fishing sources. Exercising control over our fishing sources at sea is, in the first place, a very difficult task, because one is dealing with offences that can take place far out to sea and also at night, which makes them very difficult to trace. One would need many people and possibly many instruments in order to exercise proper control. But with this Bill an effort is being made to preserve the balance between protection and utilization. On the one hand as much protection as possible is being granted so that our fishing sources will not be wiped out, and on the other hand we are trying to ensure that the fishing industry is a financial asset to the country. We all agree that control is of the utmost importance, because this industry can be a permanent asset to us if we control it was we are now intending to do. But, as I have said, it is not all that easy. Sir, we know the history of other countries’ fishing sources that were wiped out as the result of poor control, and that is why we are coming along with this legislation. Sir, some fault has been found with the heavy penalties for which provision is being made here. But people who commit these offences can only be deterred by heavy penalties. It is sometimes very difficult to bring these offenders to book. A great deal has already been done in this respect, for which we are grateful to the department. Here we also think of other improvements which have been brought about in respect of the fishing industry— our fishing harbours, etc. This Bill also makes provision for control over the export of fish, and it also protects the vested export channels. What is of particular importance is that the product which is exported must be of a good quality, and this Bill provides that fish which is exported must undergo inspection. Control is also being exercised over the quantity that is exported and countries to which fish is exported. As far as exports are concerned, we want to express our thanks and appreciation to the South African Bureau of Standards for the work they have already done and are still doing to ensure that the product which is exported will be of good quality.

Sir, in this Bill provision is also being made for the fixing of a maximum and a minimum price. This provision, if I am interpreting it correctly, will give the fisherman some assurance about the price he is going to get for the fish he brings ashore. It is a provision that could perhaps eliminate problems between the fishermen and the factories. Provision has also been made for certain areas to be declared prohibited areas. I should like to support this. Breeding areas can even be created which would help to ensure that our fishing sources are not wiped out. Sir, I also want to emphasize the importance of research, for which certain amounts of money will be voted in future. Sir, in that connection I want to say that research is as difficult a matter as control because it must also take place at sea. However, we cannot sufficiently emphasize that research is very important to determine our sources and how many such sources there are. If certain sources have been over-exploited in the past, this was due to a lack of knowledge and not specifically to exterminate them. I hope that the department and the hon. the Minister will in future be able to create the machinery to implement the control that is being envisaged in this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with this Bill clause by clause.

Clause 1(a): Medical Fitness of Candidates on Appointment in the Public Service.

This amendment is being effected on the recommendation of the Department of Health. It is deemed desirable that in addition to diseases and physical defects, mental defects should also be specifically mentioned in the provision in question. In addition the proposed amended definition is more comprehensive, and it therefore covers mental defects as well as infirmities.

Clause 1(b): Tabling of particulars of persons appointed in the administrative division of the Public Service.

1. (i) In terms of the existing provisions of the Act the Minister of the Interior shall, within one calendar month from the commencement of each ordinary session of Parliament, lay upon the Table in Parliament a return containing particulars mentioned in this section of all persons who have, since the commencement of the preceding ordinary session of Parliament, been appointed in the administrative division of the Public Service and who were not officers prior to such appointment.
2. (ii) There is no valid reason why the prescribed particulars cannot be included in the annual report of the Commission, which is also tabled in terms of section 28 of the Act. Such a step would eliminate the drawing up and separate tabling of the return, which entails additional work, while the same information would still be submitted to Parliament in good time, but in another form. In view of this the amendment of section 11(4) is being proposed.
3. (iii) If the said envisaged amendment is accepted, a consequential amendment of paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (4) is necessary, viz. the paragraph dealing with the period in respect of which particulars (of the appointments in question) shall be reported. At present it extends from the commencement of every preceding ordinary session to the tabling thereof during the ensuing session. An amendment to the effect that the period shall be that period covered by the annual report, is logical and proper. The next annual report of the Commission will cover the period 1st July, 1972 to 30th June, 1973. In that report particulars may be included of all the appointments in question made since those tabled in the latest return. Subsequently the particulars will be furnished in respect of every year under review. In terms of section 28 of the Act the annual report shall be tabled by the Minister of the Interior within seven days after he has received it, if Parliament is then in session, or if Parliament is not then in session, within seven days after the commencement of its next session.
4. (iv) The insertion of the following words in the proviso is a logical improvement of the wording, and is being inserted on the recommendation of the Law Advisers: “if the Commission recommends the appointment of a person who is not an officer, to fill any post in the administrative division, the Commission shall,”. This entails no departure or new principle.

Clauses 2, 6 and 7: Keeping up to date of proclamations issued by the State President, in terms of section 13(7) of the Act, relating to the transfer of employees to non-White authorities.

1. (i) In terms of the existing provision a non-White officer or employee who occupies a post or position in a department designated from time to time by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette may, on the recommendation of the Commission and on certain conditions, be transferred to a non-White authority.
2. (ii) It is deemed desirable that the list of departments designated should take the form of a Third Schedule to the Public Service Act. Such an arrangement will ensure that the envisaged schedule is kept up to date by officers who are frequently concerned in the application of the Act. On the other hand, separate proclamations which are not part of the Act may easily escape attention. Amendment and/or supplementation of such a schedule will still take place by way of proclamation by the State President. The envisaged amendments are therefore aimed solely at simplification.

Clauses 3 and 4: Membership of political parties: Officers and employees in the Public Service.

1. (i) In terms of the existing provision an officer is guilty of misconduct if he “becomes a member of any political organization or takes active part in political matters”.
2. (ii) The officials have over the years insisted on acquiring membership of political parties, and in this regard various channels, particularly party congresses, were utilized to state their case. At the 1970 congress of the Public Servants’ Association of South Africa the idea that public servants may become members of political parties was supported for the first time, and by an overwhelming majority. As a result of this pressure exerted by the public servants it was decided to reconsider the existing restriction.

It will be noted that the amendment prohibits an official from using his official position to further or prejudice the interests of any political parties. Attention is also drawn to the fact that, in terms of the provisions of section 17(h) of the Act, officials are still prohibited from attempting to secure intervention from political or outside sources in relation to their positions and conditions of employment, while their participation in politics will also be subject to the conditions as stated in clause 4.

Clause 5:

Section 26(1 )(b)bis provides for the establishment of a medical aid fund of which certain officers and employees may be required to become and to remain members.

Section 26(1)(b)ter, on the other hand, provides for the recognition by the Public Service Commission of a specific (private) medical aid fund or medical aid society as an institution of which certain officers and employees are or may be required to become and remain members.

There is as yet no such medical aid fund as envisaged by section 26(1)(b)bis. For the present, and until such time as such a fund is instituted, officers and employees appointed after a specific date in the Public Service are required to become and to remain members of the Public Service Medical Aid Association (hereinafter referred to as the P.S.M.A.A.) whose connection with the Public Service is confirmed in Section 26(1)(b)ter of the Public Service Act, 1957.

In terms of the regulations promulgated in terms of the Medical Schemes Act, 1967, the P.S.M.A.A. is required to settle in full, before the end of the fourth month following on the month in which the service was rendered, the accounts of doctors, dentists, etc., rendering services in terms of the approved tariffs and which have not been submitted by members, together with their contributions in respect of these accounts, to the P.S.M.A.A. for settlement.

The result of the measures referred to in paragraph 4 is that the P.S.M.A.A. (a) not only has to pay out a large amount monthly in respect of said accounts, which includes an amount of several thousands of rands representing outstanding contributions by members in respect of such accounts; but (b) also experiences constant problems in collecting members’ contributions in respect of such accounts (frequently at considerable cost) and in fact has to write off monthly an amount of approximately R2 700 as uncollectable members’ contributions in respect of settled accounts.

Public service members who fail to meet their obligations to the P.S.M.A.A. are guilty of misconduct in terms of section 17(s) of the Public Service Act, 1957, but owing to the fact that the amounts which, under the present circumstances, are owed to the P.S.M.A.A. in individual cases are in many cases negligible, the step of charging them formally with misconduct, and the time-consuming and expensive procedure attendant upon this, is not justified. The only effective alternative measure is therefore to provide that moneys owing by them to the P.S.M.A.A. shall be recovered from salaries and, upon termination of service, from other moneys payable to them in terms of the Public Service Act 1957, and that these moneys shall be paid over to the P.S.M.A.A.

According to the law advisers it would be in conflict with section 21(1) of the Public Service Act, 1957, if the envisaged provision were made in the Public Service regulations only. Consequently provision has to be made in the Public Service Act, 1957, for the insertion in the regulations of such a provision, and in addition not only in respect of members’ contributions in respect of accounts, but also in respect of their monthly membership fees.

The problems which the P.S.M.A.A. is at present experiencing will also be experienced by any medical aid fund which may possibly be introduced at a subsequent stage in terms of section 26(1)(b)bis of the Public Service Act, 1957, and as a result it is necessary that the latter section should also, while the opportunity presents itself, be adjusted in this specific connection. At the same time this opportunity is being taken to subdivide both applicable statutory sections into sub-paragraphs, in order to let them read more easily.

Clause 8 contains the short title of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill which has been introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister deals with administrative measures affecting the running of the Public Service and matters which are of concern to the public at large. The hon. the Minister elaborated in his opening remarks on the various clauses of this Bill. I propose to make short comments on some of these clauses and comments at length on others.

As far as clause 1(b) is concerned, it provides for a more streamlined and simplified method of having information recorded, i.e. of appointments of persons upon the recommendation of the commission to positions in the administrative section of the Public Service who were not previously in the Public Service. What worries one is the possibility of the delay of this information being made known generally as is provided for by this particular amendment. While the hon. the Minister was speaking I asked him when the year-end of the report of the Public Service Commission is. This is the 30th June of each year. If this information is going to appear in the printed reports of the commission, it may well be that it is well into the subsequent session of Parliament before that information is made available to Parliament. On the present basis the information is laid on the table immediately the House assembles for a new session. I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this delay will or will not occur and it will be interesting if he would be good enough to indicate how soon for the last few years, for instance, the reports of the commission have been available after commencement of the session of Parliament.

Then there are two matters which are not to be reported upon, matters which I think need to be considered. Again, I would welcome the hon. the Deputy Minister’s opinion on these matters. The first one is in regard to those persons recommended who have not been appointed. In other words, I refer to cases where the commission has made a recommendation for the appointment of a person to an administrative post, but turned down by the Cabinet. The second point I would like to raise is the question of where there has been a supersession of public servants by the appointment of some person from outside the Service to an administrative post. I believe that that is information that should be available and that should possibly be included in the report.

The second point I want to make is that it is an improvement to include in the Bill this third schedule as is inserted by clause 7. In this schedule the list of departments from which transfers may take place is given and when read with clause 2, which amends section 13(7) of the principal Act, you will find that it is now also applicable to non-White employees of the Service. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister, while in one way accepting the view which we have always held on this side of the House that these schedules should form part of the measures before Parliament so that we know what we are legislating upon, continues to introduce or retain the hybrid provision that the schedule to a Bill can be altered by the State President by proclamation. I know that that is in this particular Act already. I know that it is there in regard to the First Schedule of the Public Service Act, which can be amended by the State President by means of proclamation. However, is it essential in this particular instance that one should do something that is not really desirable in legislation, namely that the schedule to an Act or Bill can be changed purely by State President’s proclamation?

I am sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not do more to motivate the provisions of clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill which refer to the political activities of public servants. He told us that the Public Servants Association passed a resolution in 1970 requesting that they should be permitted to participate in party politics, become members of parties. It is a fact that the association did this. He said that these resolutions had been made at various congresses. No doubt he was referring to congresses of his party. In terms of the present section 17(g), which deals with the prohibition of participation in political activity, a public servant is prohibited from becoming a member of any political organization or from taking part in any political matters—it is a very wide definition. What I think gave rise to a great deal of the discussion which took place during 1970, was an instance which was reported where disciplinary proceedings were taken against a certain information officer, the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Agricultural and Technical Services. This particular gentleman had to appear before a magistrate, not by way of a criminal trial but by way of a disciplinary inquiry in terms of the Act, on a charge of having contravened the law. That charge was withdrawn and the inquiry was dropped, but what was the complaint against this particular individual? The complaint was that for 14 years he, as a public servant, had been a member of a political party, that he had been active in party politics to the extent of canvassing and collecting funds. What was perhaps the greatest evil in the eyes of some people was that this particular gentleman helped the Hertzog group on the election day in 1970. However, they did not continue with their proceedings against this particular official. Why I raise this matter, is that at the same time, in the same year, this request came from the Public Servants Association, but it was turned down by the Public Service Commission. They considered the request of 1970 but it was turned down. The then Minister of Agriculture, Senator Dirkie Uys, then indicated that the whole question of party political activity of public servants would be considered by the Cabinet.

When dealing with the Bill before us today, one must bear two matters in mind. Firstly, the public servants being dealt with under this Bill exclude members of the Police Force and members of the Defence Force, Army, Navy and Air Force; it does not deal with the officials and employees of the Railways; and it deals with employees of the Post Office only to the extent that the Post Office Staff Board made regulations applicable to Post Office employees; it excludes all provincial employees except those few high-ranking officials who come under the Public Service Commission; it excludes the teachers, who are under the control of the provinces, throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. So, this particular Bill we are considering here is dealing with a restricted section of what the public generally know or accept as the Public Service, i.e. the people in the service of the Government or the State and its various departments.

The first point is then the limited problem, if there is one, that we are solving, the limited area with which we are dealing under the provisions of this Bill. The second one is that there are varying rules that are applied in varying ways and with varying degrees of severity in all those other groups or departments of the Public Service in its colloquial sense. I believe that this is a wholly unsatisfactory position we have in South Africa. It is an unsatisfactory situation to have prohibitions as they exist now under section 17(g) which is to be amended and which are never enforced. A question was asked to the hon. the Minister a few days ago by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District as to whether any disciplinary steps had been taken in the last ten years against any public servant for contravention of section 17(g). There has been none. I think we would blush if anyone in this House should suggest that members of the Public Service had not in fact participated with us in the activities of political parties during the last ten years. That has happened and the law and regulations have not been applied. For that reason I think it is healthy and right to discuss the matter in this House in order to see what can and should be done. The position is unsatisfactory because members of the Public Service in the general colloquial connotation, namely including members of the Railways, the Post Office and other staff, have been participating in party and other political activities and the provisions of the Act have been ignored because of two things. Reasons were given by several Ministers in the Other Place in reply to questions put to them in 1970. First of all, it is that disciplinary action may be taken and that the operative section of this Bill, section 18 of the Act, also states that action may be taken against him for a transgression. I believe that that is wrong. There were a number of questions and various Ministers replied to them in the Other Place. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, dealing with activities in the Newcastle by-election, when a senior official of one of the State departments offered himself for nomination, said that it was not imperative to take action. There was a question to the Minister of Community Development in regard to officials participating in elections and he said they were not officials falling under the provisions of the Public Service Act. There was a question to the Minister of National Education, who replied “I have no legal powers in terms of which I may allow officers in my department to take an active part in political matters and the conduct of officers is therefore not subject to my prior consent”.

A question was then asked by an hon. Senator whether, if action is not taken when they do participate, the Minister can permit them to participate. This is an unsatisfactory position to which we have come regarding political activities. It is also unfair and unjust to those members of the Public Service who abide by the letter and the spirit of the regulations, members who are then cajoled by party politicians and party organizers who say: “Why don’t you do something? Look, nothing happens to those who do participate.” It is an unhealthy state of affairs and I believe there should be uniformity throughout the whole of the Public Service in its colloquial sense as to what can and what cannot be done in the political field. Obviously there should be clear, unambiguous and precise provisions to ensure, first of all-—and I think this is the responsibility of us in this House in considering this matter—that we do not readily conform to demands which come to us and are presented to us as the general demands of the Public Service, but which are really the demands of a vociferous group of persons who are actively interested in political activities at the present time. We must be careful that in giving the right to participate, we do not open the door to actions which will detrimentally affect the high standing of the Civil Service in South Africa. It can detrimentally affect it, if one or two or half a dozen persons use the rights which we give them in a manner which is not in the spirit of the legislation which we pass. I think that we must therefore be very careful in formulating what can and cannot be done by public servants in relation to politics. The danger is that it can have a detrimental effect on the Public Service in this way: Is it not a reality that one will find that, if a person is not successful with a request to some department for something to be done, if he approaches a senior Government official and is turned down, he will say, “Oh, that is because he belongs to that political party, and I do not belong to the same party as that senior official.” I believe it is for that very reason that large numbers of high officials in the Public Service of South Africa, as in other countries, have shied off from political activities in order that their impartiality should not be suspect because of their open adherence and activities within a political party. It is for that reason that we on this side of the House oppose the principle of free and unrestricted participation in party politics. We would not like to see it there at all. But with the present situation which has arisen in the country, where these vast numbers of public servants are, because of the department to which they are attached, allowed to participate in politics, it would be unfair and, I think, unjust, to public servants themselves not to regularize their position in order that they may know, firstly, that the provisions of the Act will not be ignored, as section 17(g) has been ignored up to date, that those people who do transgress the law, to the detriment of the good name of the Service, will be acted against, that there will be disciplinary action; and secondly, that they know precisely what they can and cannot do.

Now I want to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker. Imagine what the position would be, Sir, if the officials of this House, the public servants attached to the centre of government, to the whole parliamentary structure, were to become active participants in party politics. That would be a most unhealthy state of affairs. In other countries they have gone so far as to, in fact, deal with the Public Service differently at different levels. At a low level, the participation is extensive, and the higher the position of the official, the less is the extent of permission to participate in politics. This matter was discussed, in 1970. I want to just read a remark in the leading article which appeared in Dagbreek of the 14th June, 1970, on this subject, an article in which information was given about what was happening, as well as the general views that had been expressed. I just want to read this part:

Sir, I think that is fair.

What about the railwaymen?

The railwaymen are free. What I am saying, is that there is in the country at the present moment, as regards the larger section of the Public Service, no uniformity, and I fear that the time has come that there should be uniformity. The people in the hon. the Minister’s department are very helpful. Many of them, in fact, canvass for us. They do an awful lot of work for us. I am very glad and very grateful to them. But, Sir, it would be very wrong of us to encourage others, although it would perhaps be dishonest to say that we did have other members of the Public Service assisting us.

If they can be prospective candidates, they would even be more helpful.

Well, we have had those who are offering to assist. When I say “helpful”, I do not mean obtaining preferential bookings on the Railways, for instance, but helpful to the party to which they are attached.