Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned a few days ago, we on this side of the House had made it clear that more time was required to deal with this legislation properly. For two reasons it is very clear to me now that we on this side of the House, as well as hon. members on that side, acted very wisely in adjourning this debate until today, for we have now had an opportunity, in the first place, of making a proper study of the speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I must say that the hon. gentleman introduced this legislation in a very few words, but that it may in some respects be regarded as being of a drastic nature. This is the first reason, I think, why it was a good thing that this House has now had an opportunity to consider this legislation.

The second reason, specifically, is the legislation itself. I want to inform the hon., gentleman at once that we on this side wish to move the following amendment—

1. (a) powers of expropriation are conferred upon the Commission for purposes other than those at present provided for in the principal Act;
2. (b) such expropriation may prejudice private landowners and the general public; and
3. (c) unlimited power to impose a levy in respect of animals slaughtered at an abattoir is conferred upon the Commission”.

I hope to indicate very clearly in the course of my speech why we have moved this amendment. In the first place I want to confine myself to only two of the clauses of the Bill, which in our opinion are of great importance. Let us consider clause 5 first. This clause deals with the question of expropriation. I wish to state that there are few matters in any country which create more problems for the authorities than the expropriation of land does. From the earliest years expropriation, as the hon. the Minister will know, has been a bone of contention. Last year an amending Bill on community development was introduced in this House. This Bill was referred to a Select Committee even before the Second Reading of that Bill.

In the meantime two interim reports have been brought out, and after that a departmental committee was appointed to institute an investigation into a basis for uniform expropriation legislation. What has become of this committee we still do not know at this stage. But what I find strange, Sir, is that the hon. the Minister should come forward at this particular stage, with this legislation, after mention had been made of a departmental committee appointed to find a proper basis for expropriation. One is immediately entitled to ask: What became of this report, and what became of this departmental committee? Are these powers of expropriation which the hon. gentleman is appropriating for the commission the result of this departmental committee’s report?

One does not expect the hon. the Minister to make this report available to the House or to us, although it would be very good of him if he did do so, but I do nevertheless want to ask: Are these powers of expropriation which the hon. gentleman wants to grant to the commission in terms of clause 5 an anticipation of the departmental committee which the hon. gentleman appointed? If they are not, would it not have been better for the hon. the Minister to have waited with this legislation in question until he did in fact have that report in his hands so that a uniform basis could be laid down for expropriation in this country? The clause which we object to the most, is clause 5. I want to say at once that we supported the hon. gentleman on that side at the time the Abattoir Commission legislation was before the House. We approved of making it possible for more abattoir facilities to be established; of this commission being able to apply rationalization, and of being able to give over local authorities the correct technical guidance, and also of being able to supply individuals or groups who want to erect an abattoir with the correct guidance. For that reason we on this side do not have any specific objection to the idea that the Minister may, through the commission, expropriate land for the extension of abattoir facilities or of a particular abattoir, for the power is already contained in the original legislation for the commission to expropriate land for the erection of an abattoir.

Well now, such an abattoir is not static; it may perhaps become necessary to construct additional buildings or to extend the existing building, and for that reason we do not really object to subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new section 31A. But the hon. the Minister is now requesting in paragraph (b) that the commission should also have the right, subject to his approval, to expropriate land which is required for the handling, treatment, storage, packing, cooling, freezing, sale distribution or processing of meat or products of animals slaughtered at any abattoir. Sir, here the Minister is immediately venturing into something which should in fact remain the province of the private sector. One is entitled to ask immediately why it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to do this, for he is now going much further than we had in mind with the original legislation. One can understand that all kinds of related industries may perhaps develop around an abattoir, and that it should be laid down in this legislation along which lines it would be necessary to proceed. But why should the commission have powers of expropriation for this purpose? We have no objection to related industries developing near to such an abattoir, for it is certainly the appropriate place, but why are powers of expropriation necessary for that purpose, for surely the private organization in question is at liberty to negotiate in the normal manner with the owner to acquire the necessary land.

One would have expected the hon. the Minister to have left it in the hands of private parties to negotiate in the normal manner, and if he had had any misgivings, one would have expected him to have given us a very clear picture in his Second Reading speech of his problems, but that the hon. gentleman did not do. All that he told us was that additional facilities were necessary for the wholesale sector; that was his argument in his Second Reading, but the Bill itself goes much further. I can see no reason why persons in the private meat trade cannot negotiate in the normal manner with the owners of surrounding properties to acquire the necessary land for the establishment of a factory for the boning or the further processing or packing of meat. But the hon. the Minister simply came to this House and stated that the commission needed these powers. Any firm in the meat trade may now approach the Minister and say to him: “We are very sorry, but we cannot acquire the land which we need in the normal manner; we want you, through the Abattoir Commission, to expropriate that land for us.” If the Minister agrees to do so, he immediately ventures into the domain of private initiative.

We on this side feel that the principle of expropriation in this case is entirely wrong; we feel that it is a matter which should be left to the private organizations concerned. Sir, if the establishment of abattoir facilities will be frustrated if these powers of expropriation are not conferred upon the commission, then this side of the House would be prepared to help the Minister, but the fact that these powers of expropriation do not exist at present, does not frustrate the establishment of additional abattoir facilities. In addition, as I have already mentioned, the hon. the Minister already has that power in terms of the principal Act if land is required for the establishment of an abattoir, but the Minister is going a step further here. If certain people cannot get hold of property for the processing of meat or for any other purposes through the normal method of negotiating with the owner of the land, then they can approach the Minister and ask him to intervene. I want to know why the hon. the Minister wants this power. The allocation of this power is not going to improve our abattoir facilities in any way, which are definitely a bottle-neck in the meat industry today; that cannot therefore be his argument. If that were his argument, he would have had to stop after paragraph (a). Sir, the hon. the Minister did not, in his Second Reading speech, make out any case for why he also requires the powers contained in paragraph (b). We on this side of the House would like to protect private initiative, and for that reason we have moved this amendment.

Sir, I now want to proceed to deal with clause 6, which in our opinion is unfair. When this legislation was before the House originally, the Minister also wanted to confer upon the commission the power to impose an unlimited levy on the producer whose cattle or sheep are sent to an abattoir. At the time we advanced the argument —and that argument is still valid today— that the Abattoir Commission had not beat established for the sole benefit of the agriculturalist of South Africa; this commission was established to serve the local authorities, private organizations, the producers and the consumers. At the time we told the Minister of Agriculture that the expenses of this Abattoir Commission should be covered from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The farmer pays a levy to the Meat Board, and that is quite right. The levy is frequently too high, but it is right that he should pay a levy to protect his own industry. But here we are dealing with facilities which are being established by the Abattoir Commission to the benefit of all inhabitants of the country. Why should the farmer of South Africa be the only one to bear the expenses of this commission? The hon. gentleman, with this clause, now wants to delete the provision we introduced at the time, that that levy shall not be more than 6c per head for cattle, horses, mules and donkeys, not more than 3c per head for calves and pigs, and not more than 1,5c per head for sheep and goats. Now the hon. gentleman wants to delete this, and he wants to make the levy which the commission may impose, with the approval of the Minister, an unlimited one. I want to say at once that we cannot accept this provision in this clause. In the first place we think it is unfair to the farmer of South Africa that he has to make the contribution alone, and in the second place we feel that if there is additional expenditure attendant on the work of the commission— and this we readily concede for their services are expanding and their expenditure will therefore increase—we still cannot allow the sky to be the limit in this respect. For that reason we are prepared, if the hon. the Minister can make out a case for additional expenditure, to propose that the levies shall not exceed certain amounts. But we want to know from the hon. the Minister what the limit is which he requires. We have an idea of what he requires, but I think he ought to take the House into his confidence and tell us what he requires; we will then introduce the necessary amendment so that that amounts which he wants to collect by means of levies, will not exceed certain amounts.

Sir, these are the two principal objections of this side of the House to this legislation, and we want very clear replies from the hon. the Minister to these questions. It is a pity that we have this situation, for here is legislation which we would have liked to have supported, but when he comes forward with such provisions I am very sorry but we cannot support him in this respect. The attitude of this side of the House must not be interpreted as being an attitude implying that we are not prepared to help our meat industry or our agriculture in South Africa. Our original attitude in respect of this legislation made it very clear that we are in fact prepared to do this. But we are not going to allow the hon. gentleman to appropriate, behind this smoke screen of seemingly wanting to help the agriculturist of South Africa, drastic powers for the commission, powers which he did not originally provide and which, if it does in fact require them, may be provided in any case in a perfectly normal manner. For that reason our attitude is as I have stated it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park moved an amendment and raised serious objections to a few of the principles of this legislation. The first objection he raised was that this legislation is of a very drastic nature and that it is to the disadvantage of private owners. In addition, he objected to the unlimited levy for which provision is being made.

The hon. member also objected to clause 5. This clause sets out the powers which the commission will acquire for the extension of an abattoir and for the following (new section 31A(1)(b))—

An important point is in fact that a private group or co-operative will also be able to make use of these powers. I really feel that the hon. member is concerned about a problem which really does not exist.

The Bill contains only three important provisions. The first is to make provision for the acquisition of powers for the expropriation of land needed for the extension of abattoirs. This power will not be acquired for all abattoirs, but I think it will be acquired mainly for abattoirs which will be established to render special services, such as the abattoirs of producer co-operatives.

The second objection which the hon. member had, was to the power to enter upon premises. This brings us to another important objective of the Bill. In the third place the hon. member objected to the levies. I would have agreed with the hon. member if it had been possible to determine a maximum so that it would not in future be necessary to introduce amending legislation again. However, if a high maximum is determined, we know from experience that that high maximum will come into force immediately. For that reason I think we may safely leave this matter in the hands of the hon. the Minister. He will ensure that these levies will not be determined at an excessively high level.

The hon. member argued further that we should wait with this legislation. However, we know that it cannot wait. I shall try to explain the reason for my statement. We know that the State is making R29 million available for the establishment of abattoirs. That shows us how important this matter is. We know that it frequently happens that insufficient quantities of meat are available in our major controlled centres, and that it is also not possible to slaughter the animals. It is of the utmost importance that priority be given to this matter so that the increased demand for meat may be satisfied and the consumer may be provided with adequate quantities of meat. This would also ensure our producers of stable prices and serve as an incentive to them to prepare their cattle more carefully for the market. It will be possible to send the animals to market in a fatter condition and with a greater weight. At the moment our average slaughtering weight is less than 500 lbs. I am referring now to the carcass weight of cattle. I believe that if there is a stable market price and the producer knows that he will be reimbursed for the costs which he incurred in fattening his animals, it will be possible to increase this weight by at least 50%. As far as mutton is concerned as well, it will be possible to deliver considerably heavier carcasses to the market. In that way a very valuable additional quantity of meat will be made available for the consumer. The requirements of a modern abattoir are entirely different to those of the present abattoirs where the hides are pulled off and the carcass sawn down the middle. We know that the requirements of the consumer necessitate revolutionary thinking. The modern butchery is a selling point, and a well-trained blockman is perhaps required for only one or two hours per day. This is among the most expensive labour there is and then this man has to spend his time unproductively at the selling point for the rest of the day. The labour of this well-trained and specialized blockman may be utilized far more effectively at a modern abattoir or meat factory, where the meat processing and hygienic packing process of the different cuts is carried out so that the requirements of the housewife may be met. If it is done in this way it is not necessary to do this in a private butchery. This would definitely be conducive to efficient utilization of labour and also to the elimination of high costs. There is another task as well. The processing of our meat is a very important factor, for we usually find that meat which is sold through a butchery has a great deal of excess fat. This fat could be removed by such a service abattoir, and mixed with meat of a poorer quality. All the essential services, such as the processing of waste products, make this measure necessary, and for that reason this legislation creates the opportunity for fulfilling the long-cherished ideal that the producer cooperatives be afforded an opportunity of simplifying the marketing process and of bringing the consumer and the producer closer together. In this way unnecessary costs could be eliminated. It opens the door to a new approach. The producer is afforded the opportunity of bringing his produce to the doorstep of the consumer, and in this way ensuring price stability for the consumer. In addition, the consumer will also be assured of an adequate quantity of better quality meat on his table. Through this process the consumer and the producer will be afforded the opportunity of eliminating the excessive profit which is frequently made by the middleman. For that reason, this legislation is very essential, for it will be conducive to ensuring that the meat industry is fully exploited to the benefit of the producer. It will give the producer a stable market, and it will ensure that the consumers are able to buy more and better quality meat at fair prices. It will be possible to do so, not only because these powers are being conferred upon the Abattoir Commission—the hon. member for Newton Park objected to that—but also because they will also be conferred upon the private individuals who make such a request, I am of course advocating that the producer co-operatives should create these facilities.

Lastly, I want to mention that the objection of the hon. member is that the private sector should also be afforded this opportunity, and that the Abattoir Commission should not appropriate these powers to itself. The Bill provides that these powers may also be acquired by the private individual. I feel that this is a step in the right direction for us, and that there are many benefits for us in this legislation. I feel that there should be no delay or procrastination with this legislation, but that we should get this Bill on the Statute Book as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein District has expressed his disappointment at the fact that the hon. member for Newton Park has indicated that we shall oppose this measure unless we get certain undertakings from the hon. the Deputy Minister, particularly reassurances regarding the powers which are now asked for in clause 5 of this Bill, namely the powers regarding expropriation. The hon. member for Bloemfontein District implied that we were opposed to the whole principle of granting the commission the necessary powers to expand an existing abattoir or to establish a new one. I want to give the lie to that statement right now. I want to make it quite clear to hon. members of this House that we have at no time expressed our opposition to the aims and objectives of the Abattoir Commission Act. The hon. member for Newton Park has made it quite clear in his speech that we are prepared to support that section of clause 5 which will allow the commission to expropriate land which is required for the extension of any abattoir. That we are prepared to grant but, when we come to the other provisions which incorporate a completely new principle, namely that a statutory body now shall have the power to expropriate from an unwilling seller—that is what it amounts to—land which is to be handed to a third person for commercial purposes, that is what we are opposed to. We are opposed to the fact that this statutory body should be given powers by this Parliament to expropriate land and hand that land to a third person in order that he may make a profit. That is what we are being asked to do here.

Let us have a look at the whole question; what is it exactly that we are being asked for? The hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out in his introductory speech that the Act quite rightly provides that the commission, or a local authority or a private individual who gets permission from the Minister of Agriculture to establish an abattoir, shall have the power to expropriate land for the establishment of an abattoir.

You will recollect, Sir, that we did not oppose that provision when it came before the House. We were quite prepared in those three cases to grant such power but within the limits which are prescribed in the Act, namely for the purposes of the establishment of an abattoir. But this goes an awful lot further than that! As it was some time ago we had the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister, I think, that for the record I should read out exactly what the hon. the Deputy Minister said then. He said—

Is that true or not?

That is quite correct. I read further—

For the introduction of such an important principle, a new principle, into our law, surely the hon. the Deputy Minister should have gone a little bit further. He should at least have motivated his case. He should at least have advised this House why he requires that these vast powers be given to this statutory body, because this is a completely new principle which is absolutely adhorrent to us in the manner in which I presented it just now. I know that we have legislation empowering not only statutory bodies but also a private concern to expropriate land for a particular purpose. I quote as an example legislation piloted through this House by the late Minister Mr. Eric Louw, which gave a certain firm the power to establish an oil refinery in Durban. It gave them the power to expropriate, but within very tightly defined limits. It was passed by this House on the grounds that it involved an essential industry, an industry essential to the advancement of South Africa and for our own internal security, as well as other things. We accepted that principle at the time, and we accepted it within the very narrow limits which were prescribed in that particular legislation. The hon. member for Newton Park has made it quite plain this afternoon that we do not want to hamstring the Abattoir Commission. We believe that the Abattoir Commission must be given all the encouragement and incentive to go ahead and to achieve its objects. We want to assist it in achieving those objects, but this is not the way in which to assist them to achieve those objects. I believe that the provisions as they have been presented to us this afternoon are far wider than those which even the Abattoir Commission wants. They go far beyond what is necessary for the Abattoir Commission to get off the ground and to establish the abattoirs which are absolutely necessary for the meat industry in this country, both from the point of view of the producer, as my hon. friend from Bloemfontein District has mentioned and from the point of view of the consumer of meat in this country, and also a third most important one, namely from the point of view of the large export markets which exist overseas which can be exploited by our producers in this country if we will only put our abattoirs in order.

But now you want to oppose this.

The hon. member for Pretoria District must not be irresponsible. He knows he is not right when he says that sort of thing. We have made it quite clear what our attitude is; perhaps he does not understand. It has been explained to him in Afrikaans by the hon. member for Newton Park and I am endeavouring to explain it to him now, but he will continue to make a statement which is false.

The hon. member for Newton Park has pointed out that that is not the truth and I have done the same.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. member say that I made a false statement?

The hon. member must withdraw the word “false”.

I withdraw the word “false”; let me then say “a statement which is devoid of truth”. It has no truth in it, because twice during the last hour it has been explained to him exactly what our attitude is. Now, what is being asked for in the provision as we have it now? The commission may with the approval of the Minister for its own benefit or for the benefit of any other person—as I have put it a third party, a commercial enterprise or an individual—expropriate land which is required for the handling, treatment, storage, packing, cooling, freezing, sale, distribution or processing of meat or products of animals slaughtered at any abattoir if the Minister is satisfied that the commission or such person as the case may be is unable to acquire that land on reasonable terms. Let us take this section by section. The commission may expropriate for some third person who will be by the very nature of this amendment a commercial enterprise, an enterprise which is there for the profit which it can make. Then there is a reference to “land which is required for the handling … sale and distribution of meat”. This is so widely phrased that if a retail butcher was to persuade the commission that it was necessary that he should have a butcher shop in the middle of Adderley Street, 200 yards down from this House, the commission would have the power to expropriate the necessary land and buildings in Adderley Street to allow this man to establish that retail butchery.

That is really a silly argument.

It may be a silly argument; it is an extreme argument, but I do not believe that a single member on that side of the House would be able to deny that that is what is written in this Bill. That is what is written here. I am prepared to concede that I am being extreme. I have taken the extreme instance. But whether a man is going to apply for a retail butchery adjacent to the abattoir, or a retail butchery in the middle of Adderley Street, the principle remains the same. I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon—I want to go a little further with the argument advanced by my hon. friend from Newton Park—that within certain limits we are prepared to accept this principle. If the hon. the Minister can come to us with an amendment to the effect that these powers ought to be given to the commission in order to house essential industries, industries which are essential to the establishment or the continued existence of an abattoir, we are prepared to support him. But we will be prepared to support him only if he is going to work within those limits that it must be industries which are essential for the establishment of abattoirs and which are going to benefit the country as a whole. I refer particularly to the wholesale meat industry. I can see no objection to this sort of power being granted if it is essential to house wholesale distributors of meat, or if it is essential for an exporter that he should have premises adjacent to the abattoir, then, on the basis of it being an essential industry, we will be prepared to accept these provisions. But we cannot, I am afraid, accept these provisions as wide as they are now. We will be coming to the Committee Stage a little later, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot come with some such amendment to our satisfaction, we will then move an amendment to limit those powers to this extent.

In closing, I wish to make certain comments regarding this whole question of expropriation. Where you have a question like this, you must have pros and cons. There are those who believe that this must be done. These are the people who put the well-being of the community as a whole above that of the individual who comprises the community and who generally have a socialistic outlook. The hon. member for Newton Park has mentioned that last year a Select Committee of this House was appointed to consider and to report on the Community Development Amendment Bill, in which a provision was incorporated allowing a Government body or department or a statutory body to expropriate land for a third party. I believe that all of us who are interested in this matter should have a look at the report of the Select Committee, in which various pertinent points are made (See S.C. 9—’72). I quote from page 58 of the report of that Select Committee, where SAPOA says it believes that:

They go on to make the point that in the eyes of certain people everything has a value. Every man has his price and every object has a value which should be paid. As long as the true or market value of that object is paid, then it is in order to deprive the owner of his rights over that property. Sir, we do not subscribe to that view at all. In fact, I would rather subscribe to the viewpoint, expressed in the old saying, that an Englishman’s home is his castle. The fact that I have a home which has an intrinsic value has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter. This is exactly what is happening at the moment. I believe that the Abattoir Commission have run into trouble in my constituency, at Cato Ridge, where they intend establishing an abattoir. There they have had trouble with a recalcitrant owner who will not sell to the commission or anyone. He says he is sitting on his land, and it is his right, Sir. But now we are being asked this afternoon to give the commission the right to expropriate that land from this recalcitrant owner, not for the purpose of the establishment of an abattoir, but so that it can be handed over to a third party, an economic concern, which is going to go in there with one object only, and that is to make a profit. I do not believe that that is right at all. I believe it is utterly wrong that this should happen. Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Deputy Minister will introduce an amendment to limit the application of this measure, then we are prepared to support him, but at this stage I must support the amendment of the hon. member for Newton Park.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition moved an amendment against this legislation because they allege that the rights of property owners are being encroached upon and that it invests the Abattoir Commission with excessive powers, in terms of which they will take action detrimental to the individual. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has embroidered upon the theme of the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member for Newton Park alleged that according to their view the legislation is too drastic. They reject the Bill as a result of the drastic nature of its content. They then suggested that certain words should be deleted, in other words that this House should not accept this legislation.

In respect of the first argument used by the Opposition, i.e. that it grants far-reaching powers to the Abattoir Commission to obtain property, I want to refer to the old Act, No. 86 of 1967, and more specifically to section 31 of that Act. Subsection (1) of section 31 reads as follows—

According to this provision the hon. the Minister already had the power of expropriation. That same power of expropriation is now simply being extended in this Bill because, in the case of the 1967 Act, we were only dealing with an abattoir of the kind known throughout the years, i.e. a slaughtering place where no processing took place, but where animals were slaughtered and where only the preparation of carcasses and offal for the wholesale and retail trade took place. Now, in clause 5, which the Opposition is apposing here, the task and the object of an abattoir is being extended. Clause 5 of the Bill makes provision, inter alia, for the addition of a new section 31A, in terms of which the purposes of expropriation under section 31(1) of the Act, which I have just read, are being extended. This has already been referred to by another hon. member; but just to complete my argument, I again want to refer to this extension. The proposed new section 31A(1) reads, inter alia, as follows—

In the first place, under this Bill the circle is being drawn tighter so that no outside slaughtering, or bush slaughtering, as we called it in the past, may take place. This Bill now states very clearly that carcasses may be slaughtered in an abattoir not only for the purposes for which abattoir slaughtering took place in the past, but also for the purposes I have just mentioned. Sir, anyone who knows anything about the future trends, the meat industry, realizes that it is absolutely imperative that provision be made by approved abattoirs erected with the permission of the Minister for what is mentioned in this Bill. If the Opposition impedes the extension of the functions of abattoirs, they are hindering the entire future of the meat industry. Sir, it is clear to us all that there is a very big, almost boundless future for the livestock and meat industry in South Africa, and not only in South Africa, but in the entire world, because there is a world-wide shortage of this product. I just want to emphasize that the powers being given to the Abattoir Commission are subject to the approval and control of the Minister, and this being so, this House of Assembly itself retains the say, and for that reason these objections on the part of the Opposition are not worth very much at all, in my opinion, it must be made possible for the Abattoir Commission to obtain property, because an abattoir that must carry out such services cannot do so unless it can obtain suitable property. In his speech the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has already referred to an incident, in his constituency, in which the Abattoir Commission found it difficult to obtain suitable property, but the old Act did not make provision for powers of expropriation in the case of this particular kind of abattoir. And since there have already been other incidents of this nature, which I do not have to mention here, in which the Commission found it almost impossible to obtain suitable property, the Commission must, subject to the Minister’s approval, have this power of expropriation. The argument that the expropriation will take place at the expense of the owner of the property, does not hold good at all, because both parties will be able to have proper valuations done. The Expropriation Act has always made provision for the fact that an owner who is not satisfied with the amount allocated to him, can make further representations, and those avenues are still open to the relevant owner.

That argument on the part of the Opposition therefore falls away completely. The Minister will not allow an individual, whose property is being expropriated by the Abattoir Commission, to suffer any losses; he will ensure that the full value of the property is paid out to the owner if that property must be expropriated in the interest of South Africa’s meat producers and consumers. Sir, it is very clear that the extension of abattoirs will be of great benefit to both producers and consumers. We are reminded that only a year or so ago the producers were struggling to obtain permits to dispatch their animals to the controlled markets when those animals were ready for the market We simply did not have the facilities to slaughter the livestock offered. Since they will now not only be transported, but can also be processed into other products, this section must be amended so that it can also meet with that requirement. As far as this point is concerned I just want to reiterate that if the Opposition opposes that improvement in the Act, they will be doing a great disservice to the meat producers, in fact to the entire meat industry. I have said that up to this point there have been insufficient abattoirs not only for slaughtering for local use—and this every meat producer can bear witness to—but also for overseas markets. As I have already said, it is known that a big market is waiting upon the meat producers to export carcasses overseas. Why must the South African producer then be obstructed in his industry? I cannot follow the Opposition’s argument. According to inspections there have thus far been insufficient abattoirs and slaughtering places to do the slaughtering for the export market. Recent inspections may result in more now qualifying. I mention, inter alia, those that are already available at Windhoek, Okahandja and Otavi. There are three, therefore, in South-West Africa, and in the Republic of South Africa this then leaves only Estcourt and Heidelberg, which qualify for slaughtering for the United Kingdom, abattoirs from which they will accept products. But for France only Maitland in the Cape qualifies. That is the only abattoir; there we have a very favourable market for our meat products. Hence, slaughtering facilities are necessary for the future because our slaughtering capacity is completely inadequate. I can just mention briefly that slaughtering increased, i.e. the consumption of meat increased. In 1970, 1 636 000 head of cattle were slaughtered in the Republic. In 1972, 2 021 000 head of cattle were being slaughtered. Calves decreased slightly, but not appreciably—from 180 000 in 1970 to 172 000 in 1972. It is fine to see that meat producers are increasingly slaughtering less young cattle, such as calves, and preferably keeping them pack and feeding them so that they can later be placed on the market at a much greater weight. As far as sheep are concerned, there was a tremendous decrease in slaughtering. In 1970, 9 170 000 were slaughtered, and in 1972, 6 736 000—a tremendous decrease. This is not due to the fact that the South African consumers wanted to eat less mutton. No, it was due to the fact that more animals were simply not available. If one supports the meat industry by creating facilities for it, it would greatly encourage the producer to make more animals available. Even the pig slaughtering was more extensive over that period. In the last year or so great emphasis has been placed on the shortage of mutton. Notwithstanding the fact that South Africa had a reasonably large number of sheep, and still has, we made certain experiments by importing sheep carcasses because the consumer in South Africa would like to have his mutton. For South Africa’s consumers not to be able to obtain this product as a result of a shortage of suitable abattoirs, cannot be allowed. The fact is that notwithstanding several problems that have been experienced, the local per capita consumption of meat increased from 8,7 lbs. to 10,4 lbs. With the increase of salaries, not only for the Whites, but also for the non-Whites, the consumption will increase further because we know our non-Whites, more than any others, are people who would like to have their meat. In the light of these complications, provision will have to be made for more meat to be made available to the consumers in South Africa.

The hon. members objected to the increase in the levy that can be imposed on carcasses by the Abattoir Commission. Up to the present the Abattoir Commission has been working under very difficult circumstances. Knowing that we have a meat shortage, they made efforts, to take over certain abattoirs and to restore and improve others. In this connection I refer, for example, to the abattoirs at Boksburg and Springs, and I believe Pietermaritzburg can also be mentioned in that connection. The Commission is also spending capital on other abattoirs.

I should like to give an example of how difficult the Abattoir Commission is finding things financially. In 1970-’71 the Abattoir Commission’s expenditure was R199 000, in 1971-’72 it was already R266 000 and according to estimates the expenditure for the present year will amount to R312 000. Seen against the background of the extension of the Abattoir Commission’s task, it is imperative that this levy be increased and not, as hon. members of the Opposition want to claim, because we again want to affect the producer adversely by allowing the levy to be increased. The levy, as determined in the Principal Act, could not be increased, but circumstances have now changed to such a degree that this must, in fact, be increased.

I now want to record the revenue as against the expenditure I mentioned a moment ago. In 1971-’72 the revenue of the Abattoir Commission was only R279 000. If that revenue is compared with the expenditure I mentioned, it is clear that the hon. Opposition has no argument in claiming that the levy is unnecessary. Running expenses have increased, and not only in the case of state undertakings; they are also increasing daily in the case of the private sector. We must surely provide the Abattoir Commission with the necessary funds so that they can cover their administration costs. Their capital expenditure is covered by means of loans, and I know that they have thus far borrowed R2,99 million so that abattoir facilities could be modernized and restored. However, they cannot finance what will be necessary for this industry in the future from these meagre funds.

We know that the Meat Board has a levy fund which is at present about R16 million strong. However, not a cent of that capital can be layed claim to for the erection or improvement of abattoirs, which forms a portion of this industry. No, the Meat Board must keep those funds available for the purchasing of meat when its price drops beneath the fixed floor price. This is a great support to the producers of meat products in South Africa.

The amendment now being introduced into the principal Act is very essential and to the benefit of the meat industry in South Africa. Anyone who opposes the acceptance of these provisions, as the hon. Opposition is doing, and who tries to jeopardize these provisions, is doing a disservice to the meat and livestock industries in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is unclear to me why the two hon. members who have thus far spoken on the Government side, adopt the standpoint that we are opposed to more extensive authorization being given to the Abattoir Commission by this legislation. The hon. member for Newton Park began by saying that it galls us that it is necessary to move an amendment to this legislation because no one on that side of the House is more in favour of good abattoirs than we are on this side of the House. The hon. member for Harrismith lodged a plea here for good abattoirs. Of course we also want them. Throughout the years we have complained, by way of the South African Agricultural Union and other organizations, because there are too few cold storage facilities and because we have too few abattoirs, and we urged the Government to improve the situation.

Now that we have the facilities, you are complaining about that.

Up to now we have had nothing but an account of how good it would be to have good abattoirs. We agree wholeheartedly with that. The hon. member for Harrismith said …

Withdraw the amendment.

… that the erection of good abattoirs is a power the Abattoir Commission already had and that as far as that is concerned, this legislation is not asking for anything new. We on this side of the House are very keen to know this. It is, after all, in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s power to state, in his reply to this debate, whether he accepts our amendment, or that he will bring about the necessary amendments in the Other Place.

I now specifically want to dwell on the amendments we do not see our way clear to accepting. Then I should like to analyse the situation in the light of this. Here the Commission wants expropriation powers on behalf of a third person, a third organization, a third corporation, or whatever the case may be. When he has finished expropriating, that third party obtains a title deed without any provisos about what he must do with it after he has received the title deed.

How does he do it?

If that hon. member would just give me a chance to speak, he would hear about it. An interested party makes an application in the first place. We must now bear in mind that at this stage there are three big interested parties in the meat trade—one is a corporation the other two are not. He applies for premises situated near the abattoirs. He applies for the premises with a view to establishing facilities there for the processing and canning of products, for the processing of the by-products and for the whole process involved. Let us take it that he applies for a five hectare plot of land. Where in this legislation is it stipulated that he must erect those facilities, on that piece of land for which he has applied, within a certain period of time? Apart from the fact that the hon. the Minister has the powers to approve this or not, if an application were to come from an interested party in the meat industry who says he needs five hectares of land for the furnishing of a series of products—let us say he wants to bone the meat, process it, pack it and furnish by-products—that is surely a reasonable application. I cannot imagine that the hon. the Minister would reject it. Once he has approved it and they get hold of interests, and once they have obtained transfer, where in this legislation are there provisos that stipulate that they must erect those facilities within a certain period? Where is it stated that they cannot keep that land for 20 years without creating the facilities? Where in the new section 31A(b) is it provided that once premises have been approved, they must use them for that purpose? Where is it provided that that interested party cannot, after five or ten years, sell seven hectares for whatever purposes? He must, it is true, apply with that purpose in mind, and then it is approved, but once he has the title deed he can do with it what he wants to. I suspect that the hon. the Deputy Minister can see the reasonableness of that. I hope he will come along with the assurance, and I also hope that he will do so by way of an amendment in this House or in the Other Place, that he will ensure that these provisions are properly fixed and that they will not be as loose as they are at present. Under the present circumstances, with the expropriation of land by a statutory body on behalf of an interested third party with a subsequent carte blanche we are creating a dangerous situation. The body does apply for the land, it is true, to use it for a particular purpose, but once he has obtained transfer, the land can surely not be expropriated again. Then they can surely state that they will do so next year, three years later, or even in six years’ time, that they want to make plans for this or that. They can also say, when they have completed their planning, that they no longer want a canning factory or they no longer want to produce a by-product, and they consequently sell half the premises. We know how the prices of land increase, particularly under such circumstances. If, in his reply, the hon. the Deputy Minister gives us the assurance in connection with two matters, and both these matters are mentioned in the amendment, he may be certain that he will have our support. Because no one is more anxious than the hon. members on this side of the House—and myself in particular, because I have been dealing with that for so many years—that proper abattoirs and cold storage facilities should be made available. That and the extension of abattoris are essential to the meat industry. As far as that is concerned, we are already 15 years too late.

We speak the same language, after all.

Yes, but as far as the proposed new section 31A(1)(b) is concerned, we do not speak the same language. I do not like the carte blanche that is being given in paragraph (b), all the objectives contained in it. I am not opposing any one of those objectives. Everything mentioned in paragraph (b) we want to go along with, i.e. “the handling, treatment, storage, packing, cooling, freezing, sale, distribution or processing of meat or products of animals”, but subject to the fact that proper precautionary measures be taken so that we will not again have an Agliotti case, so that there is not the possibility, at a later stage, of speculating with that land. I am convinced …

[Inaudible.]

Don’t let me hurt you. I am already convinced that in his reply the hon. the Minister will tell us that he has also thought about this matter already. After all, I know he has thought about it; he says we speak the same language. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister surely also want on behalf of the Government, the same precautionary measures as this side of the House wants. I am certain of that.

I briefly want to dwell on the levy mentioned in clause 6. In connection with levies I want to say that it is a fact that any board, any scheme or any statutory body in terms of the Marketing Act, which imposes levies, must come, by way of the Minister concerned, to this House when the changing of any levy is proposed. He must then come and state why he wants to change the levy. I am not even advocating a maximum levy. If the Abattoir Commission needs the levy for their purposes, they must impose it, but they must not change the levy from time to time just as they want to, arbitrarily. They must not do so without bringing it to the House so that the Minister concerned can defend it. This ought to be the case here as well. No statutory body ought to have the power to change a levy in the middle of the season, or any time it feels like it, without a proper explanation being given here by the Minister concerned, an explanation of what they want it for, and without the hon. House exercising the right which has always been its right, i.e. to ask how levies are being spent.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? He realizes that the Wool Board can increase its levies from time to time. I should like to know from the hon. member: Must we come to Parliament every year to ask that the 6 cents, which is levied, should be increased to 7 cents, and next year to 8 cents? The hon. member surely knows that the statutory boards have the power to increase the levies according to the industry. Does he want us to have to come every year and request amendments to the levies? Is that his proposal?

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. the Minister’s question, I want to say that throughout the years wool has been subject to its own legislation. Throughout the years it has always been the duty of the Wool Board to come here via the Minister.

Let us say in the case of the Wheat Board.

No, the hon. the Minister specifically asked about the Wool Board. Throughout the years this has been the position as far as the Wool Board is concerned. This ought to be the case, too. Here we are dealing with a statutory body which is not, like the marketing councils, concerned with a scheme under the Marketing Act. It is a statutory board which, just like the Wool Board, has had its own legislation. Exactly the same applies to that board. I am glad the hon. the Minister asked the question. Throughout the years the Wool Board has done this in terms of its own legislation. Every time it wanted to change its levies, the then hon. Minister of Agriculture came to this House and said for what purposes the levy was being changed, etc., before the levy could be changed. This legislation must function properly; what is so difficult about presenting the case during any Parliamentary session to indicate that the Abattoir Commission needs a levy Y instead of a levy X for specific purposes? Then the country is satisfied, after all, because the change has been defended, here where it ought to be defended, where the legislation is made. I am sure that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister will see the matter as we see it. If there are problems about why the fixing of the levy from time to time cannot be brought to this House, they must tell us what the problems are. Is it a question of time? Is that the reason? Do they want to change the levy in the middle of a working year? It is surely an unsound principle, in any case, to simply change a levy in the middle of the year. All levies for the year are determined in advance. We are dealing here with an extremely large industry. If the levies are determined in advance for the year ahead, it is surely the easiest thing in the world to come to this House and say that the levy ought to be changed from X to Y after a year has passed.

If one then wants to increase the slaughtering fees per carcass of beef from 6 cents to 8 cents, must one come to Parliament?

As soon as I have got the hon. the Minister to the point where he is arguing with me, I know I have got under his skin, and that is what I want to do. He now sees some justification for our standpoint. I want to reinterate that having given us the assurances we have asked for, the hon. the Deputy Minister must not make a mistake and think we do not support the extension of abattoirs. We also support the expropriation powers he has as far as abattoirs are concerned, and in respect of the other related activities which the Abattoir Commission itself wants to carry out. We also want this for every interested party or body wanting to extend abattoirs, and they will of necessity want to do so, because when one is dealing with such a highly perishable product as meat, one tries to carry out extensions as near as possible to existing abattoirs, thereby to eliminate the transport costs and the possibility of meat going bad. If the hon. the Deputy Minister were to say that the Abattoir Commission carries out expropriation, retains the title deed to the land and leases it for 99 years on condition that if the land is not used as was originally intended, such a lessee is breaking the contract, it is a horse of a different colour. This is surely a reasonable view of the matter; then there will not be the opportunity for exploitation—I do not want to call it corruption— on behalf of one organization or many organizations. There will then not be the opportunity to speculate at a later stage with expropriated land. That is, of course, the one thing we want to eliminate. I am sorry we have to adopt this standpoint, but we have no choice until the hon. the Deputy Minister looks at this and perhaps correct it in the Other Place or at a later stage. Then these problems will disappear.

Mr. Speaker, I only want to reply to part of what the hon. member for East London City said, because he really agrees with us more than he does with the hon. member for Newton Park. That hon. member said, concerning the expropriation by the commission with the approval of the Minister on behalf of a third person, that he is totally opposed to it and that the third person, the private person has to seek his own salvation in commerce, while the hon. member for East London City says he is in favour of the commission expropriating for a private person, but it must not be done unconditionally.

Oom Jan is a Nationalist; only he does not realize it yet.

Yes, he is seeing the light of day. The hon. member for Newton Park would do well to inquire from this member why the Bill is worded the way it is and why expropriation has to take place on behalf of those private persons. However, I want to deal with the hon. member for East London City first. He says the expropriation should not take place unconditionally. But the hon. member should read that clause again. The clause provides that the commission may expropriate “with the approval of and on the conditions determined by the Minister”. The hon. member wants the Minister to say what conditions he is going to lay down. I now want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks it is desirable to spell out the conditions here and so stand in the Minister’s way? After all, in each specific instance when the commission approaches him and requests powers of appropriation on behalf of a third person or on behalf of a municipality or whoever it may be, he can take the whole matter into consideration and then determine the conditions which are apparently necessary. The Minister has the right to do this and he can therefore lay down any condition. However, if the conditions are laid down here now, as the hon. member wants to do and the Minister is confronted with a situation for which these conditions make us provision, he has to come back to this House to obtain approval for provisions we cannot foresee today and which may perhaps arise in five or 10 years’ time. Therefore it is a good thing for the Minister to have wide powers so that he can lay down the conditions as he likes. As far as expropriation is concerned, I can come to only one conclusion and that is that hon. members opposite deliberately want to make the meat trade more expensive than it is now.

That is nonsense.

It is a fact. This hon. member says he is in favour of good abattoirs and associated facilities, and this I appreciate. That hon. member over there says that the private person must seek his own salvation. In other words, if he cannot do so cheaply, it is his own business. The Minister now wants to help the private person to obtain that land cheaply and not at the expense of the private owner, because the normal expropriation requirements are such that the private owner will be compensated in terms of the market value. Now I want to furnish an example. In Lichtenburg there are cement factories, and their lime quarries are situated away from the factory. They are situated some way from the factory. At one time they had to buy land from farmers in order to build a railway line from the lime quarries to the factories. At the same time the Railways was extending a certain railway line. The Railways expropriated at from R400 to R500 per morgen, which is a very good price. The normal market price is between R300 and R350 per morgen. In other words, the Railways paid the farmers a good price. Do you know, Sir, what the farmers charged that private undertaking? They charged R6 000 per morgen in order to have a railway line built merely because those people did not have any powers of expropriation. They had no choice: they had to build a railway line. Therefore they had to pay any price the farmers charged them or give up any development. That is the position.

We must consider the matter in terms of a modern abattoir with modern distribution and processing facilities. It is essential for a modern abattoir with modern distribution facilities to have those facilities as close as possible to the abattoir itself. I am thinking of boning and cooling facilities, and the processing of by-products from carcasses, etc., to make a maximum use of them. All this contributes, first of all, to one’s being able to sell a better quality product and exploit the market better. Secondly, the more by-products one can reclaim and process, the cheaper the industry becomes. But to ensure maximum efficiency, the meat must be handled as little as possible. In other words, it would be best if the meat could be conveyed from the abattoir to the factories via a cooling tunnel. Now the hon. member must not tell me that if the cooling tunnel has to be 10 miles long, i.e. if the private organizations are not in a position to build the factories at the abattoirs, it is not going to increase the costs. This will naturally increase the costs! Now I say that those hon. members just want to enable those few landowners in the immediate vicinity of the abattoir to charge excessive prices instead of their merely being entitled to the normal compensation. By doing that they will increase the total cost of the industry. The revenue of the producer will be reduced, and the consumer’s costs will be increased.

What about the levy?

Yes, I am coming to that now. In discussing this, the hon. member and his colleagues all said they were not objecting to the expropriation of land for the construction or expansion of an abattoir. But, Sir, the commission may give a private person the right to construct an abattoir. What is the basis of the standpoint hon. members adopt on principle when the commission expropriates land and tells a private person he may construct an abattoir? All that is happening now, is that the commission goes further and grants the right to associated industries which are essential for distribution and which have to be constructed at the abattoir. But now hon. members say they are against this. I tell you, Sir, this is because they want to increase the costs of the industry and because they do not appreciate its importance to the industry. That is why they adopt that attitude. They want to protect the few people living in the immediate vicinity of those abattoirs. One is not allowed to construct an abattoir without the approval of the commission. One cannot simply decide one is going to erect an abattoir. The commission considers the needs of the country and then decides where abattoirs have to be erected. If there is not a private person or a municipality willing to do it, the commission will erect the abattoir itself. In other words, the situation of the abattoir determines where these associated industries have to be established. The private person who wants to establish them is site-bound just as the abattoir is. The principle which applies, is exactly the same. Just as the commission has the right to expropriate land for an abattoir, it also has the right to expropriate land for services concerned with the distribution of the meat. It is the same principle. Hon. members agree that this must apply in respect of the abattoir, but they are not prepared to go further. That is why I say they are not consistent. The effect of it is that costs will be pushed up.

But now hon. members refer to the levy and they make a tickey’s worth of propaganda out of it. In fact they insult the farmer when they say that he should not pay the levy and that it should come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. But what about all the other costs associated with the abattoirs? Those hon. members are trying to catch the farmers with those few cents; that is the smallest item in the whole slaughtering process. What about the large amounts? Why do they not plead for those amounts? Do they really think the farmers are as stupid as to believe that those hon. members are doing them a favour just because they are asking for those few cents, while the large expenses, the slaughtering expenses and the municipal fees, still have to be paid by the farmers? Hon. members do not object to that. Sir, the agricultural unions have considered this matter. At that time when the Act laid down what it is now going to lay down again in terms of this amendment, this was approved by the South African Agricultural Union and this amendment has now been recommended by the South-West African Meat Trade Control Board. They have approved it. In other words, the farmers do not object to paying that levy and that it be increased by the Minister at the request of the commission from time to time. But now those hon. members say that we have to refer this matter to Parliament every time it has to be increased. All the control boards may impose similar levies, and they do not come back to Parliament every time to have the Act amended. The Minister simply gives his approval. What do hon. members think would be the position if we were to change by means of legislation the levies all these control boards may impose? Therefore this commission is …

These are the marketing boards.

Yes, these are the marketing boards, but this case is exactly the same. We are dealing here with a levy, and the Meat Board may ask for a levy. I now want to ask: How much is the levy the Meat Board may collect from the farmer? On beef carcasses it is 87c per kg carcass weight. In other words, if one has a 100 kg carcass, the levy would be 87c. Only with the Minister’s approval can they change that levy, but if they want to increase this small levy of 6c, hon. members say that legislation is necessary for that.

It is 6c on one head of cattle.

Yes, it is 6c in the case of a head of cattle. I was referring to a small carcass of 100 kg, or 220 lbs. On such a small carcass the levy is 87c. In the case of a large carcass of 440 lbs or 200 kg, the levy is more than R1-70.

But you can only discuss that under the Vote. You cannot discuss that now.

I am discussing the fact that hon. members opposite want legislation to alter this levy. Mr. Speaker, those hon. members say that this levy of 6c per carcass may not be increased to 7c without legislation, but they do not mind the control boards changing the considerable levy of R1-74 only with the Minister’s approval. Now I ask them: What are they in fact trying to do? Are they trying to win the favour of the farmer by pleading for such a small item, while all the other expenses still exist, expenses they lose sight of and are not concerned about? Sir, they are now quarrelling about 6c per carcass, but what about the other expenses? There are the slaughter and the abattoir fees. Last year in July that cost in Benoni was R2-90, in Port Elizabeth it was R2-38 and in Johannesburg it was R2-60. Then there is the levy of the Meat Board which I have already referred to. As I have said, it is, 87c per kg. If one adds that up, it comes to more than R3, and almost R4, but the hon. member is not concerned about those expenses. He wants legislation in respect of this 6c, however. That is why I say, Sir, that I am really at a loss to understand the hon. member’s logic. I cannot understand what he hopes to achieve by it. Now he says that the producer cannot afford it. But in the meantime he does not want to allow the Minister to expropriate land for the private entrepreneur in order to keep the costs of the industry low. He does not want to allow that. Now I ask you, Sir: What kind of argument do we get from this hon. member?

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that this Abattoir Commission was established to co-ordinate and rationalize the meat industry and the slaughtering facilities. The farmers are prepared to pay this levy, with a view to only one result being achieved apart from all those the Abattoir Commission have achieved so far. I want to say that they have not yet achieved any spectacular results, because they have only been in existence for a few years. However, as a result of the fact that the City Deep abattoirs were taken over by the Abattoir Commission and were not built by the U.P. City Council of Johannesburg, a minimum saving of R10 million will be affected. Just think what this will mean to the industry. The saving in that case is worth more to the producer than the 6c which he has to pay as a levy. It is not only those abattoirs where a saving has been effected; there are also other abattoirs which have received the attention of the commission. For example, there are the Cato Ridge abattoirs and the abattoirs in South-West Africa which the commission itself is going to build. Then there are also abattoirs which, as a result of the recommendations and the know-how of the commission, are to be improved by the various municipalities, and these will probably be far cheaper too because of the fact that there is a central point where all this know-how is collected and made available to everyone concerned with the abattoirs. Therefore it is a good thing for a levy of this kind to be imposed, a levy enabling the Abattoir Commission to do research, to make information available, to co-ordinate and to rationalize, and for that reason I want to lend my strongest support to this Bill, and to say once again that the United Party is merely trying to make a little propaganda out of this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a few remarks first of all to the hon. the Minister in regard to the principle that is involved in clause 5 of this Bill. I am particularly pleased that the hon. member for Germiston is in the House while I do this because he and I have had something to do with this principle in previous debates in this House. I refer to the principle of expropriation of land from private owners for the benefit of another private concern or private undertaking.

Sir, I do not believe that this is a principle that can be dealt with in isolation in relation to any particular industry; it is a principle that is far wider than that. I believe it can well be argued that the principle of expropriation for slum clearance or for urban renewal in our cities is just as important as expropriation to further a particular industry in the framework of government in South Africa. I say that, Sir, because in effect this Bill in this clause is creating the State as an agent to acquire the ownership of ground, not merely to acquire ground in order to put it to use for certain purposes but to acquire ownership of the ground for the benefit of a private concern.

Clause 5 of this Bill makes that quite clear because as soon as expropriation of land has taken place for the benefit of any person, then such person becomes the owner thereof. It is a question of ownership, not a question of use. The hon. member for Newton Park has made it quite clear that our view is that it is obviously necessary to expand, enlarge and modernize abattoirs throughout the country; we have no objection to that, but what we do say is that if there is to be any expropriation, if land is to be taken away from a private individual, then it must fall under the authority of the Abattoir Commission itself. The land could then be leased to persons on public tender, and there could be no question of unjust treatment of one wholesaler or one meat packer against another, because it would be open to all of them to tender for the land. Where an abattoir falls under the control of a municipality and not under the control of the commission, then the municipality should similarly be entitled to lease cold rooms in that abattoir to wholesalers within the municipal complex, just as is the case today.

Sir, to that there is no objection. We have made our attitude on this side quite clear. We have made it clear, although the hon. member for Harrismith tried to get away from this point, that we stand firmly by the necessity of expanding and modernizing our abattoirs, but what troubles us on this side is the principle of expropriation under these circumstances. Sir, it is interesting to recall that last year when we dealt with the Community Development Bill, No. AB 39 of 1972, which was withdrawn, it provided for no fewer than six safeguards before the proposed expropriation could take place.

Sir, there were six safeguards written into the draft Bill. They were that the Minister had to be satisfied that there was justification for the scheme which was to be undertaken; secondly, that the Minister had to have plans for the use and development of the land placed before him before he even thought of expropriating; thirdly, that the Minister had to be satisfied that the means and ability of the person requiring the expropriation to carry out the development was there and that it was guaranteed that it would be done within a certain time; fourthly, that the Minister had to be satisfied that all other avenues had been explored to find ground for the particular purpose; fifthly, that the price had to be not less than the market price of the property; and sixthly, that additional amounts for actual financial loss and inconvenience would be written into the law. This measure which we have before us at the moment is a complete departure from what the Minister’s own attitude was last year. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture, then the Deputy Minister, made an interesting observation which I quoted last year from Die Transvaler. He had had an interview with Die Transvaler on 7th March, 1972, and the Deputy Minister then was very upset about expropriations of any sort; he went so far as to say that no expropriation should take place and no compensation should be settled in any circumstances unless by a court of law. That is what the hon. the Minister said last year.

You can still appeal, and we are introducing an expropriation Bill this session.

But it is not in this Bill. That relates to the Expropriation Act, which is quite a different matter. Now at long last we have had a word about the Expropriation Commission of Inquiry which has been sitting since July of last year, to get some uniformity. I look forward to reading its report and seeing the legislation. I am sure it will please people, but the Minister in the meantime has now allowed this Bill to come before this House without any safeguards. The Minister has said “Heaven relieve me from ever having to decide anything about values”, but under this Bill he will have to do it twice because first of all in terms of the new section 31A(1) he must be satisfied that the commission or the person concerned is unable to acquire that land on reasonable terms. So first of all he must sit down and decide whether the terms that have been offered are reasonable, and then he must work that out. Then he must go a bit further, if he feels the terms are unreasonable, and sit in judgment and determine the figure to be paid by way of compensation in terms of the Arbitration Act of 1965, which Act does not include compensation for inconvenience and loss of use of property by the person whose property has been expropriated. This Bill in that respect does not even go as far in regard to safeguards as the Bill introduced last year, which dealt with the important matter of urban renewal. I think it is important to refer to what happened last year because I moved as an amendment that that particular Bill should be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading, because of what was involved in it. What did we find from the hon. member for Germiston? If he will allow me to usurp the copyright to read his speech, I shall be glad because it was a very excellent speech on this subject of expropriation. He put the matter lucidly and, because he is on that side, perhaps it will be of more value to hon. members opposite.

I am not ashamed of what I said last year.

I know, but I want the Minister now to register; perhaps he was not in the House at the time, this being a community development debate. I now want to let the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister hear what the hon. member said on that occasion (Hansard, Vol. 38, col. 4270)—

The hon. member for Lichtenburg should listen to this when he talks about being able to get property at bargain prices if it is expropriated by the commission; you save costs, etc. He continued—

Then the Minister himself said this—

That was the attitude of the then Minister of Community Development. Sir, this matter went to a Select Committee which sat under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Parow and the Select Committee heard evidence from the Association of Law Societies and the Property Owners’ Association and from various other individuals. The principle that is involved is set out very well in a statement by Mr. Malherbe, the President of the Association of Law Societies. He put it this way and I quote his reply to question 173 in the Report of the Select Committee on the Community Development Amendment Bill (S.C. 9—’72)—

That is in so far as the State, and the State only, can expropriate.

In this Bill provision is not made for the State to expropriate for State purposes. In this Bill provision is made for the State to use its might, power and position to expropriate for the benefit of a private concern, namely for the person who wants to set up anything from a wholesale business to a retail butcher shop. In terms of this clause this can be an expropriation even for a retail butcher shop. Obviously that is not the extent to which the Government is going, but that is an attitude which can be adopted by the Government.

I believe that we are being over hasty with this matter, over hasty in running out ahead of the Select Committee which has not yet finally reported. The Select Committee sat last year and submitted two reports. The Community Development Bill came back to this House without these provisions in it. As yet the question whether or not it is a sound principle for the State to expropriate for the benefit of private individuals, has not been finally settled.

This matter of the need for abattoir expansion cannot be dealt with in isolation.

In fact, it has already to some extent been provided in the principal Act which we are now amending, under what circumstances abattoirs may be run by private enterprise. That power is understood; it is there. However, when you start to extend this power from abattoirs to every type of undertaking that is connected with the livestock and meat industry, it is going far too far. It is extending a principle for which there can be no justification whatsoever. That is why I strongly urge the hon. the Deputy Minister who is handling this Bill to look again at what is provided in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newton Park. Therein we do provide for expropriation, but the body who keeps control of that abattoir must keep control of that ground, because the only justification for expropriating the additional ground is to make the abattoir more efficient. That can be the only reason. If that is so, on what reasoning whatsoever can one accept the concept that you can then transfer ownership to somebody who is not obliged to carry on with that particular business?

It will definitely not be a butcher shop.

But the Bill provides for that.

Let us go back to the question of deboning and export purposes; that is to say, the wholesalers. Is there any reason why the property which has been expropriated will always be required for that purpose in that position? I may be fortunate enough to persuade the Minister that the company in which I may have an interest, should have an area expropriated for a wholesale business. Immediately I get a gain of capital value for my particular business as against the man who does not have that facility, because I am now situated with a business which has premises right next to the abattoir. I can sell that business tomorrow because I have had the good fortune of persuading the Minister that I should have that piece of ground. It is mine, it is registered in my name and I can do what I like with it. If it is ground of which the Minister says that this must for all time form part of the abattoir complex and that it must be owned by the commission or by the local authority that owns the abattoir, I must carry on my business without the boost of being given ground and ownership of ground near the abattoir. Then I must run my business in competition with anybody else in the profession. I honestly recommend this to the hon. the Minister. I think that it is a matter of which the complications and the implications have not been investigated to the full. If one wants to persist in the industry— and that I say to those more intimately concerned with the agricultural aspect— what is the better thing to have, an abattoir expanded to have for all time these facilities as part of it to persons actively operating in the industry, or to have an abattoir with ground and property around it owned by all sorts of individuals who may or may not be successful, or who may or may not continue those businesses on the property which has become their own property by registration under the new section 31A(3) as inserted by clause 5? I believe the building up of a complex as a whole where, just as we have it at the Cape abattoir at the moment, the wholesalers hire accommodation within the abattoir or cool-rooms within the abattoir, so this can be done within the enlarged complex of the abattoir, and you are not passing ownership to private individuals. I know that the hon. the Minister and many others in the industry regard this as an urgent matter, but the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Newton Park, and which we urge from this side of the House will put this right. I believe in the interests of the industry continuing to function. Let me give the hon. the Minister one other instance.

I think you have convinced me already.

I want to say that there is one further point that I want to raise which might convince the hon. the Minister even more. Let us take the position where ground is leased for …

Perhaps it was I who convinced him.

Your speech was so good that it happened to help me. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there is a further safeguard if these are leasehold rights which these persons obtain. It is important for the export industry of meat in this country that higher standards of hygiene should be maintained so as to meet with the overseas requirements. If your deboning and packing is done on leasehold ground, ground leased by the commission, the lessee of those premises is under constant supervision of the commission. If that man does not observe the highest standards of hygiene, it is in the hands of the commission to say, “Look, we have warned you twice; your lease is now being terminated.” Then you will be maintaining a higher and a better control over the hygiene aspect.

I must not detain the hon. the Minister if he is convinced, but I think we can find a measure of agreement in regard to this matter where we can provide for the industry without doing violence to the basic law that nobody’s property should be taken away by force for the benefit of another individual, that a man should only lose his property if it is in the public interest that he loses it; in other words, that it is for the public as large that there is a benefit and not a benefit for a private individual, or a private concern. I hope therefore that the amendment of the hon. member for Newton Park will be supported by the whole House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park proposed an amendment this afternoon to the Bill introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I find it quite incomprehensible that the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for East London City can come forward here with other amendments. If the hon. member for Newton Park had proposed here an amendment dealing with a qualification of the right of expropriation which the Minister, in terms of this legislation, is transferring to the commission, it would have been a different matter, but the hon. member does not come forward with a qualification of the right of expropriation; he is simply, “straightforward”, against it.

No.

Yes. The hon. member said that this was too drastic and that for that reason they were against the powers of expropriation which were being transferred to the commission.

To private persons.

Private persons have no right of expropriation in terms of this legislation. I would be obliged if the hon. member for Newton Park could show me where in this legislation it is stated that a private person has rights of expropriation. The commission has the right of expropriation and the commission may transfer that land to private persons.

To private persons.

Yes, but then the hon. member should at least say what he means in this amendment; then he should not talk about powers of expropriation conferred upon private persons, because they do not have them. The commission has the powers of expropriation. Since the commission has the powers of expropriation, the hon. member for Newton Park could after all have said …

I am sending you my amendment.

That will not help me much, because it is just as confused as the hon. members are. They have now been working on this for a week. They asked for this measure to stand over for a week so that they might look into the matter, but they still cannot tell us what they really want.

Harry Schwarz should come and help them.

Yes, perhaps Harry Schwarz should come down for a little longer than a week, because he does not manage to get his affairs in order over a weekend. The hon. member’s amendment reads—

Now the hon. member for East London City comes along and says that if we would only define the powers of expropriation a little, he would be in favour of it. How on earth can one govern in this country with such an Opposition? I am very serious when I say that these people must do their homework properly. They should not just stand here and talk for the sake of talking. Even the hon. member for Green Point does not realize the implications of clause 5 in comparison with the Act to which he referred and the work of the Select Committee where it dealt with housing projects. If the hon. members had in section (a) of their amendment come forward with a defined terrain concerning a new principle— we are by no means denying that to a certain extent there is something new here concerning the question of expropriation and transfer to a third person—then I would have been one of the first to have said: I agree that a limiting or a defining qualification should be linked to that principle of expropriation. But the hon. member for Newton Park does not do this. For that reason we must fight out this principle as it stands here. If they had done their homework, it would have been much easier. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister would possibly have listened to them. The hon. member for East London City did not submit a formal amendment to us at all. What is more, he does not even agree with the hon. member for Newton Park. Therefore the hon. member for East London City is obliged to abstain from voting when we come to the division which will follow. He does not agree with the hon. member; nor does he agree with us. The hon. member for Lichtenburg very accurately spotted the key words in the relevant clause. Concerning the whole question of expropriation and transfer to a third person, I want to say that I agree that this is a position which must be handled very carefully. Where it is a private person …

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member would only listen, he would perhaps gain a better understanding than he has to date. He might cross over. We must remember that we are not dealing here with just anything. We are dealing here with an abattoir, which is a service industry, an industry which must specifically be situated at certain places and cannot be established just anywhere. Because this is so, we have introduced this Bill, for in cases where problems arise as a result of expensive land-even though it may go to a private person —there is a difference between dealing with an abattoir which one can qualify as a service abattoir and dealing with a private abattoir or whatever the case may be. We know that that difference does exist. Because we know that there are differences with regard to abattoirs, we must look at this clause as it stands. The following is stated in the clause—

… with the approval of and on the conditions determined by the Minister …

In the words “with the approval” and “on the conditions” all those matters mentioned by the hon. member for Green Point will be taken into account.

Who says so?

Surely we are not dealing with an irresponsible government; we are not dealing with an irresponsible Minister who will not ensure that this will be the case. The hon. member for East London City should after all know better than that. The hon. member should also know that there are certain inherent qualifications which are built into an abattoir function of this kind and that all the conditions will hinge on that function of the abattoir. I want to task the hon. member for Green Point whether he thinks we are really as naive as to listen to his viewpoint, namely that a man can acquire that land today and can sell it again tomorrow, or the argument that the Abattoir Commission remains the owner of the land? But he expects private enterprise to render that service to the public even if it makes a profit out of it. Now the hon. member knows, surely, that if such a private person erects certain buildings on that land and has to do all kinds of other work and he is not the titleholder of that land, it is a practical impossibility to do so, because there are all kinds of strings attached to a matter such as the one mentioned by the hon. member.

Then there is the question of the levy. I have now reached the stage where I am sick and tired of this United Party Opposition of ours which, every time there is the merest mention of a cent which the hon. the Minister or another hon. Minister might possibly use in a discretionary man-maner, wants to bluff the world into believing that these Ministers are bankrupting the poor producer. The last person who should talk about the protection of the producer of any agricultural product in South Africa is that hon. member for Newton Park. When that hon. member for Newton Park talks about the protection of the producer, I want to run away out of this House, because he knows absolutely nothing about it. Moreover, the puerility of the matter, the inanity of the statements that we should lay down a maximum and that they are supposedly so concerned about it, is typical of the United Party. They introduced a motion here to the effect that we should sit twice a year …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member has had a chance to make his speech, and besides, I do not like replying to the hon. member. The hon. member wants us to change the Act every year as the cost of living and the price of the means of production rise. This Government is governing far more effectively than to come forward every year with minor measures. We govern in such a way that the Minister is enabled also to exercise his discretion where necessary, without always consulting an Opposition on how he should exercise his discretion. That would only mean that we would have to submit such a request to Parliament in order that the Opposition might debate it for a whole week and the hon. member for Newton Park might explain to the world that he is the protector of the producer. He, the leader in the Cape, is the protector of the producer, and has a constituency by the name of Newton Park! No, we do not govern that way. We trust the hon. the Minister and we know that we can have this problem that the maximum levy may differ from abattoir to abattoir. We cannot merely lay down a rigoristic rule, stand by it and then accept that it will work. This is how it will work: If we were to lay down today a maximum levy without the Minister having any discretion as to how that maximum is going to be laid down, then that might be the actual figure tomorrow. Then they would approach the Minister and he would have to investigate the matter again, whereas we now want to eliminate some work here by saying that they should first settle the matter with the Minister, and without our laying down a maximum amount here, the Minister may determine what that figure must be and at what abattoir the figure concerned should apply.

Now, the hon. member for Newton Park proposed his amendment. The second part states that such expropriation may prejudice private landowners and the general public. I suppose all of us in this country are jealous of the rights of the individual, and this is not in question. But hon. members opposite should not become too sensitive about this right of the individual in South Africa as a result of last Sunday’s Sunday Times. We are all jealous of the right of the individual in South Africa. This is not in question and it will be of no use to hon. members to make a terrible fuss by saying that we are now taking away the right of the individual here. We do not build an abattoir at every turn. We do not build an abattoir which is a service abattoir in every town in the country. As regards the functioning of these abattoirs, which form part of the meat industry, we should be able to grant to the Abattoir Commission the right to act.

But, Sir, this amendment contains nothing but a naked admission that hon. members do not want to see this provision on the Statute Book. They do not offer anything as a substitute. Hon. members do not tell this House and the public out there how they want it to function. The same applies to the third part of the amendment. As far as I am concerned, the hon. member could merely have said, over and above his refusal to agree to it, that they do not wish to discuss the matter further, because what more does he want to say about it? What have we been debating about if they are unable to produce an alternative? I am very sorry, but we definitely cannot accommodate the hon. members opposite. The hon. member for East London City could possibly work out a good amendment if he so wishes.

Could I?

I am sure that we agree with everybody that a narrowing down of the definition would possibly satisfy the hon. member. If that would satisfy him, I would be pleased.

Mr. Speaker, by this time, with the persuasion done by this side of the House in connection with the arguments of hon. members opposite, I think the hon. member for Newton Park is probably prepared to withdraw his amendment. I know the United Party always wants to do something in order to have nothing to do in the future. After all, that is what we know them to be like. Remembering today the old United Party meat scheme, I think of the time when the then hon. Minister needed the knowledge and advice of those hon. members very badly. Notwithstanding the fact that they were on this side of the House, we believe and know today that the old United Party meat scheme was the biggest possible failure at the time, certainly the feeblest and most pitiful scheme that ever existed in South Africa. At the time, notwithstanding that rotten scheme, that side of the House did not have the courage of their convictions to bring about any changes for its improvement. Secondly we know that they did not have the knowledge to have been able to improve it. After all, the hon. member for East London City, with his knowledge, had the opportunity at the time to supply the then Minister with his good advice and knowledge which he supposedly has today. I do not think the then Minister took any notice of the advice and knowledge of those hon. members in connection with the meat industry in our country.

We welcome this Bill for certain reasons, one of which is the amendment of the Abattoir Commission Act. It is necessary for us, through the Minister, to grant certain persons the power to expropriate certain land for certain purposes and to enter upon certain premises for certain purposes. We need this; it is not simply being asked for for the sake of asking. It is being requested for a certain purpose, in fact to amend the provisions of the said Act relating to certain levies, the regulations and offences. Sir, no organization can exist unless it has the necessary funds available to finance its functions and to make provision for incidental matters. As far as our side of the House is concerned, we have full confidence in the actions and the judgment of the Deputy Minister and the Minister in respect of the implementation of the duties resting upon them.

That is right, thank the Minister!

Hear, hear!

The amendment is indeed necessary, and we ourselves believe that the fixing of the levies by the Minister will take place in a realistic way. We depend upon the sound judgment of the Minister and his Deputy Minister when it comes to the implementation of these responsible duties that rest upon them. I am now referring not only to the duties that must be carried out by them in terms of this legislation, but also to the duties that relate to the efficiency of the Abattoir Commission. Sir, after all, we are not United Party men on this side of the House. We surely know how, in the past, they tried to take advantage of certain circumstances for the sake of political gain. They made use of certain matters and transgressed in that respect. We remember how, at the time, when there was a shortage of abattoir facilities, they exaggerated matters. They were told in this House to remember that, because it would one day by flung into their laps. That was when they asked, at the time, for R50, R60 and R70 million so that immediate provision could be made for these slaughtering facilities. That is as the hon. member for Lichtenburg said; they do not mind expenses in this industry that cause the marketing costs of the farmer to increase. They care nothing about that, as long as they can just use the matter for the purposes of propaganda, so that they may go and tell the voters that they are the saviours in this connection, then they exaggerate a matter, and they do not care what marketing costs they load onto the farmers for the future. If those facilities were to have been constructed, as the United Party recommended at the time, I want to say today that thousands upon thousands of rand would have been snatched from the farmers’ pockets as a result of the increase in marketing costs here in our country.

We know that as a result of the sound judgment of and the action taken by the Minister, as well as the work which the Abattoir Commission has done in recent times, millions of rand have been saved in the interests of the meat industry and our farmers. We also know that the United Party is solely intent upon giving vent to political feelings and to seek a little political advantage. As a result of that they again presented us today with the shortage of these facilities, solely to make propaganda. The hon. member for Newton Park says the Opposition must not be regarded as being opposed to the meat industry. But, Sir, what have they done to the benefit of the meat industry in the Republic during the past seven years that I have been sitting in this House? They have continued to stand in the way of the Minister of Agriculture and his department when it came to their taking the necessary steps to make a success of the meat industry. I want to say that the hon. the Minister is fully trusted. We believe we have no reason to be concerned about the amendment of this Act; it must be amended in any case. The Minister is introducing this amendment to define more clearly the functions of the Abattoir Commission, and to have its machinery function more smoothly. The Minister is introducing this amendment to make the Act less complicated, to the benefit of the agricultural industry and the meat producer, and all interested parties. We on this side of the House support this amending Bill with great confidence.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to add much to what has already been said in this particular debate. I think that we on this side of the House have made it particularly clear, with a series of excellent speeches, exactly what our point of view is. We have also made it clear that we on this side of the House will not stand in the way of any legislation intended to promote the well-being of the meat industry. Hon. Ministers know that if they introduce legislation that will achieve that object, and that legislation is good, it will have the support of this side of the House. I am surprised that the hon. member for Prieska has the audacity to suggest that we on this side of the House, by saying what we have said this afternoon, are using propaganda to influence the voters. I think that argument is absurd. Our arguments have been based entirely on what we believe is in the best long-term interest of the meat industry. There is no question of political propaganda being used in this debate whatsoever. I believe that if the hon. the Minister would pay attention to what we have said, and in particular to what was said by the hon. member for Green Point, who gave some very well-reasoned advice, we would be able to improve this legislation. Listening to hon. members on the other side, I came to the conclusion that they are not so sure that the way this legislation is worded is in the best interests of the industry. All we are recommending is that this legislation be rewritten, that it be amended, so that it does not have as wide an application as does this Bill which is now before us. I do not think it is necessary for me to reiterate what has been said. I think the message has come through loud and clear as to what we want. We have stressed that we are concerned about the fact that land expropriated by the commission on behalf of a private owner becomes the property of that private individual. We are going to suggest that possibly ways and means could be found of leaving that property in the hands of the commission. They could then lease it to any prospective meat processor or meat packer, or anybody who is involved in the export of meat. They can lease this land on a long-term basis. We believe that if they act in that way there can be no room for malpractice of any kind. The land will then be retained for the use for which it was expropriated. We believe that that would be in the best interests of the meat industry.

I think the hon. the Minister should consider this matter and take heed of what has been said. I do not want him to listen to the hon. member for Prieska, because the hon. member for Prieska has quite the wrong impression of what we are driving at. We want to be sure that when this Bill becomes law, it will be an Act which will be in the best interests of the meat industry.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member who has just resumed his seat says that his party is speaking “in the long-term interests of the meat industry”, then it is very difficult for this side of the House to believe it. We have here a measure which is aimed exclusively at the very promotion of these long-term interests of the meat industry. That is the primary objective of this legislation. However, hon. members are jibbing at it; they are objecting against this, and, what is more, they are doing so in that subtly concealed way so typical of them by going along with it for three-quarters of the way so that they may tell the agricultural industry outside this House that they did support it. However, the sting is in the tail; they then try to wreck it at all costs.

With reference to the Expropriation Act, I just want to react to what the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg District and Green Point said. In the Expropriation Act it is stated very positively and very clearly that this method and this machinery are employed when it is in the public interest to do so. Sir, whereas we are dealing here …

Who may expropriate?

I am coming to that. It is clear that the machinery for expropriation has been created. I am now dealing with the purpose for which expropriation takes place, and I want to suggest that what is aimed at in this Bill, complies 100% with the provisions of the Expropriation Act, because we are dealing here with (a) the extension of an abattoir, which is extremely necessary, and (b) those supplementary auxiliary services without which one cannot ensure the effective operation of an abattoir; that is why this Bill is essential

You are going too far in that direction.

Besides, Sir, in studying this Bill, you will find that the express requirements, qualifications and conditions which are built in here, safeguard the position 100%.

Where?

In the first instance, it is provided by law that the expropriation must be in the public interest.

Where is that provided?

That is provided in the principal Act, on which this Bill is based. How is it that the hon. member is so obtuse? The Expropriation Act may only be employed when the expropriation is in the public interest. Under the principal Act expropriation cannot take place for any other purpose. That was clearly laid down and embodied in the 1972 amendment of the principal Act; the power of expropriation may not be used for any other purpose; it must be in the public interest, but in this Bill and also in the principal Act it is provided further that the Minister, who is the highest authority in this field and upon whom all the powers under the principal Act have been conferred, must regard the expropriation as being in the public interest. Land may not be expropriated unless the Minister, in his wisdom, under the powers untrusted to him, is of the opinion that the expropriation is in the public interest. Furthermore, it is stated clearly that the expropriation may only take place on such conditions as the Minister may determine. Sir, that is where the argument of the hon. member for East London City collapses completely. In terms of his argument he should be supporting this Bill, because the Bill makes it imperative for the Minister to determine the conditions, and where this is the case, I cannot see what objections the hon. member for East London City can have in this connection. The further disposal of the matter takes place in strict accordance with the provisions of the Expropriation Act, i.e. according to market value and according to agreement, and if there is no agreement, then according to the procedure which is being defined, namely the court procedure, etc. In other words, nobody can be prejudiced or derive undue benefit in this process. Sir, I want to add that this is not such a strange thing. We are dealing here with a new procedure, but as far as I am concerned, this idea of expropriation by a statutory body for purposes promoting the interests of other persons or other bodies, is nothing new. You have the position that in terms of section 15 of the principal Act, the Administrator is granted the right and the power to grant to a local authority certain powers, in terms of which that local authority may, in its wisdom, exercise powers of expropriation, and that local authority may in turn deal as it thinks fit with property which it expropriates in this way; it may make it available to private persons for the purpose of building houses, etc. Just as it is in the case of a local authority, you are also dealing here with a statutory body which has been established by law and which has certain powers, inter alia, the power of expropriation. For that reason I say that this power may perhaps be described as something new, but the principle of expropriation by a body on behalf of other bodies or persons is in fact nothing new. We find the same concept in the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act. Therefore I support this idea. I believe that it is in the interests of the producer as well as the consumer in that it will eliminate a bottleneck. I may just repeat that we are amazed at the Opposition objecting in this way to sound agricultural legislation such as this.

Sir, it is necessary for us to return to the introduction of the hon. member for Newton Park, who is once again not in his bench during a debate on agriculture—which shows that he is incapable of representing an agricultural constituency. At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Newton Park wanted to know why the Minister was asking for these powers of expropriation. He has no objection to a body such as the Abattoir Commission wanting to acquire land. Right from the beginning the hon. member for Newton Park, the hon. member for East London City, the hon. member for Walmer and the other hon. member who spoke, did not say that they were going to vote against the legislation or that they were in favour of it; the matter was left hanging in the air and nothing but a lot of vague statements were made. But, Sir, consider well what the hon. member for Newton Park said. He asked why the commission should be granted these powers. It is stated expressly in clause 5 that it is for the handling, treatment, storage, packing, cooling, freezing, sale, distribution or processing of animals which are slaughtered. And then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is still unable to understand it. Perhaps I should have read from the English text, but at the beginning of clause 5 it is stated large as life for what purposes that land which must be expropriated are to be used. What then is the point of this whole argument? I shall tell you, Sir. If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, who is grumbling so in his seat over there, would take a look at the questions which the hon. member asked the hon. the Minister last year, on 1st March, concerning this levy, he would see that his curiosity drove him to it for one and the same reason, and there the hon. the Minister answered very clearly in col. 2315. He said—

Does the hon. member still not know that? He went on to say—

Then he wanted to know more and asked whether such abattoir facilities would also be established in his constituency—in order to make political capital out of it. Now the hon. member comes along here this afternoon and makes a lot of vague and contradictory statements. What does the whole argument of the Opposition this afternoon amount to? I do not know whether it is parliamentary to say this, but the fact remains that the hon. member for Newton Park adjourned this debate last Tuesday or Wednesday because he ostensibly wanted to say more at a later stage. Sir, what more did that hon. member and his colleagues have to say last week than they have had to say this afternoon? Eventually they had to call in the help of the hon. member for Green Point. It would not have surprised me if they had also called in the help of the hon. members for Wynberg and Salt River. The fact of the matter is that they did not want to take on this debate last week; they wanted the House to adjourn and they wanted to keep the Order Paper slim. I suppose the hon. member for Kensington will also be given a turn to speak in a moment, because, after all, the debate and the Order Paper must be kept going.

What have these hon. members in effect achieved this afternoon? All they achieved was to cast a reflection on the sound sense of responsibility of the Abattoir Commission. These hon. members are implying that the Abattoir Commission is not a responsible body which will know when to apply its powers of expropriation or to determine the levy as circumstances and their responsibility may permit. The hon. member for East London City came forward with the most ridiculous idea that this Abattoir Commission would now expropriate land in order to enable speculators to sell that land at a profit in 15 years’ time.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member did say it; let him move around in his seat as much as he pleases. It is a reflection on the Abattoir Commission when an hon. member of this House charges the commission with wanting to expropriate land for the purposes of land speculation or for any purposes other than those relating to the meat industry.

That has nothing to do with the Abattoir Commission.

But why then did the hon. the member raise the matter? Was it that the hon. member, when he advanced that argument, was too obtuse to understand it? The hon. member for East London City used an inane argument, to say the least of it, which puts the sense of responsibility of the Abattoir Commission in a poor light as far as the meat producer and consumer are concerned.

What else did these hon. members achieve? We have here an hon. Minister who is struggling with this meat problem in our country. He is struggling with the problem that the cattle population is unable to keep up with the demand, on the part of the consumer, for red meat. The system must be streamlined, and that is what this whole measure is aimed at. What does the hon. member do who is sitting over there and shaking his head so that one can even hear it here at the back? The reflection which is cast, is that the hon. the Minister cannot rely on the advice given by the Abattoir Commission and the Meat Board. Nor can the hon. the Minister rely on the advice given by the South African Agricultural Union. The hon. the Minister is now supposed to rely on the advice given by the hon. members for Green Point and Salt River rather than on the advice given by all these farmers’ organizations. That hon. member wants this House to be approached every year with a request for approving an increase of 6c. The hon. member for East London City has been asking for and insisting on that. I repeat that that is not only a reflection on the Abattoir Commission, but it is also a reflection on a good Minister of Agriculture.

The delay experienced in the passage of this Bill through this House, is typical of the speakers on agriculture opposite. Here we have an example of the opportunism with which they approach the agricultural industry. I think that one of the hon. members on this side has pointed that out. Their whole conduct in this debate gives evidence of that opportunism, which shows the farmer of South Africa how lightly this Opposition views the agricultural industry as a whole. That is the reason why only 41 of them are sitting in this House and why a proper debate on agriculture cannot be conducted on a good Bill.

I believe that this Bill is in the interests of the meat farmer, it is in the interests of the consumer and of the country as a whole. It is important that hon. members opposite approach this measure in a sober manner or that they become sober; either the one or the other.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Newton Park. He said that one of the reasons why he wants the Second Reading of this Bill to be refused, is that “powers of expropriation are conferred upon the commission for purposes other than those at present provided for in the principal Act.”

I fear that the hon. member was not very specific concerning those other purposes which the hon. the Minister supposedly had in mind with this legislation. I want to say to the hon. member for Newton Park, and I have listened to him and his arguments in this House a great deal, that he must tell us what he had in mind when he talks about “other purposes”. Does he mean any other sanitary … Pardon me, that was a slip of the tongue, I mean “sinister”. Does the hon. member mean that the Minister has any sinister intentions? It is perhaps important that I mention one of the objectives of this legislation. The hon. member for Newton Park will recall that the Minister announced a new abattoir policy last year, an abattoir policy which was necessitated by the problems which arose concerning slaughtering facilities. One of the problems was that local authorities and local municipalities were not willing to, or did not see their way clear to establishing further abattoir facilities as a result of high capital requirements and limited earnings in the form of interest on capital.

That is an old story.

As a result the hon. the Minister announced the policy last year according to which private enterprise would also be in a position to establish abattoir facilities. To that end he authorized private enterprise to build abattoirs in the Pretoria/Witwatersrand area because many of the abattoirs in that region would be totally unable to supply adequate slaughtering facilities by 1980. For that reason the opportunity to establish such an abattoir jointly was granted to them. It was termed a semi-auctioneering service abattoir, in other words, an abattoir where the price will chiefly be determined by the public service abattoir at City Deep in this case, which price would in fact be the barometer. In addition previously agreed-upon prices were then payable to the producers. This of course means that the costs at such an abattoir can be kept very low because one need not provide additional facilities such as cooling facilities and additional auction halls. This also means that the various bodies or persons who establish such an abattoir, must establish commercial premises in order that the carcases, as soon as they are available, can immediately be transferred to the commercial premises of the party concerned. This means, therefore, that this private enterpreneur must own property in the immediate vicinity of that abattoir.

But you said that just now as well.

Therefore this legislation provides that such facilities can be created by means of the Abattoir Commission, so that it will be possible to establish such an abattoir.

The hon. members of the Opposition must now tell us whether they are opposed to private enterprise establishing abattoir facilities in South Africa. I do not think they are. If they are not, they ought to support this measure, because it has as its object granting these people the opportunity to participate in the establisment of abattoir facilities. There is another very important amendment contained in this legislation. Clause 7 provides for the substitution of section 40 of the principal Act and determines the functions of the Abattoir Commission in consultation with interested bodies. Let me rather put it another way: The functions of the Abattoir Commission require that it to co-operate with the Meat Board. The new section 40 states very clearly that where the Abattoir Commission performs its functions for the purposes of the Act it has to do so in consultation with the Meat Board. In other words, no land will, for example, be expropriated bo benefit private initiative. I therefore agree with this amendment; I think that it is very necessary for us to have this amendment in order to develop abattoir facilities in South Africa further.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members on both sides sincerely for their contributions to the discussion of this legislation. I want to say that the discussion was conducted on a high level. It was clear to me that the United Party had had an opportunity to study this legislation thoroughly. I am also convinced that hon. members on my side definitely made a study of this Bill. I definitely think that we have had a very fruitful discussion this afternoon. We even had the legal experts from Green Point here to express opinions.

The object of this Bill is to establish better abattoir services and to make good meat available under hygienic conditions. It is the objective of the Abattoir Commission to continue these services.

Today’s debate was chiefly concerned with two points, namely the matter of expropriation and the matter of levies. In South Africa we have two kinds of abattoirs: The private abattoir which is actually a fairly new development, of which we shall see considerably more in the future, and the conventional public service abattoir to which we are all very accustomed. With the greater supply of meat, the improved handling of meat, the higher standard of living of our people and also the high standards required when meat is exported, increasingly higher standards are being required of our abattoirs today. In these times when everyone has to watch the rising costs, we most certainly expect our abattoirs to do the same. We expect the Abattoir Commission in particular to take everything into account as far as rising costs are concerned, in order to keep the costs of slaughtering as low as possible. It is very clear that if we want to succeed in that, we shall have to have slaughtering on a large scale, as is in fact the case today. It is also very clear that we shall have to use the big slaughtering units which are necessary for that, as effectively as possible. It is also clear that for hygienic reasons, when we have an abattoir, we should have as many of the essential services adjoining it as may be necessary there and can be accommodated there. In the past, in order to make this possible, we gave powers of expropriation to the Abattoir Commission in order to acquire ground for its own purposes, i.e. for the establisment of abattoirs. Another principle which is fairly revolutionary, is the expropriation of land for abattoirs on behalf of private owners. I therefore feel that the Opposition’s objection in principle lapses to a great extent because in the past we have already given powers of expropriation to the Abattoir Commission on behalf of private enterprise.

Only for abattoirs.

What the hon. member for East London City says, is quite correct; it was only for abattoirs. When we come to additional services which are in actual fact nothing but auxiliary services for the abattoirs, then in my opinion we do not really have to stretch the Act so very far in order to accommodate these. I therefore feel that it was definitely not excessively daring to have introduced this amendment as we have it here. However, I do feel that there is a great deal of concern about the expropriation of privately-owned land. I would sum up my considered opinion as follows: Expropriation of the property of a person is a drastic step which is not lightly resorted to. Secondly, since the interests of the individual must necessarily yield to the public interest, it is sometimes unavoidable that expropriation be resorted to. It is essential; we have it in many spheres, and unfortunately we shall have to apply it in this sphere as well. However, one principle is always maintained, namely that the person who is deprived of his property, must suffer no loss. That is how I see the whole matter of expropriation and I feel that when we take this viewpoint, no one need really suffer any loss nor fear any injustice. In this respect I should just like to mention that the Opposition should give some attention to the possibility of supporting an amendment in which we substitute the words “public service abattoir” in clause 5 for the word “abattoir”. I wonder whether that would not allay their objections to a great extent and whether we would not obtain their co-operation in that way. I am convinced that the Opposition is in earnest about this matter because this is really not a matter to be treated lightly. I should like them to take into account the fact that we intend to introduce that change, that is, to substitute the words “public service abattoir” for the word “abattoir.” That may set their minds at rest to some extent. It has been stated today by various hon. members, such as the hon. member for East London City and the hon. member for Green Point, that attention be given to leasing. I want to give hon. members the undertaking that we shall go into that. I just want to say that we have in fact given attention to that, but that it is not such an easy task to apply leasing in respect of the Abattoir Commission, which is a statutory body. In the first instance, money intended for an abattoir is involved, in other words, subsidized money. When it comes to leasing I hope that the Opposition will support us in using the taxpayers’ money to grant private enterprise land adjacent to the abattoir so that they can render their services there. That is one point which we must, very clearly face up to.

The second point is one concerning the point of view of the entrepreneur, namely to what extent we can in fairness expect these people to incur heavy capital expenditure in regard to buildings and other facilities on land belonging to someone else, without their possessing the property which could be used as security. Surely we should take this aspect into consideration as well. However, we shall take this matter again and go into it and if it is at all practicable, we shall introduce an amendment on another occasion. As far as objections in connection with expropriation are concerned, I want to make it very clear—various members on this side, as well as the hon. member for East London City, indicated very clearly why we are introducing these changes—that the Minister does in fact have the power to approve or reject such applications. That this should be subject to the approval of the Minister, is precisely what is contained in this Bill, as well as in the existing Act. I feel that in this there is already a guarantee, namely that this measure will not be abused.

The other aspect which troubled the Opposition, was the question of levies. I just want to put it to hon. members that I honestly feel that, since it is not a foreign principle to grant a board the power to impose levies, it was justified to delegate this to the Abattoir Commission in this instance as well. Particularly in these times, when costs are rising rapidly, it is perhaps justified to an even greater extent. Because it is also subject to the approval of the Minister, we have the guarantee that there will in fact be a restraining effect. These levies and the rises in regard to them are definitely justified, particularly because the activities of the Abattoir Commission have expanded tremendously. If we consider only the number of abattoirs which have been taken over and improved, and the new ones which are being built, it is inevitable that their activities should have expanded and that their costs should have gone up. There is no doubt about that. Secondly, the ordinary salary increases are something which must definitely be taken into account in their case too. In the third instance it is quite simply, the case that the revenue of the Abattoir Commission, because their levy is determined per head, differs from other bodies whose income is determined on a percentage commission basis. In this case the actual number of animals slaughtered has decreased, with the result that they have definitely collected substantially less than in previous years. Therefore I feel that a bigger levy is justified. Since we would like to bring it into line with the practice in regard to other boards, I cannot see why the Opposition is making such a tremendous fuss about it. I must admit I should not like to have to pay that levy. It has come to light, however, that the levy of the Abattoir Commission only comprises a very small percentage of the total cost of abattoirs. For that reason I feel that it is not justified to take up the time of Parliament with a squabble about an increase in the smallest of all levies, namely that of the Abattoir Commission, while we are in fact leaving the other costs to the discretion of others without a thought.

But after all, it will not remain small. It must increase.

I believe that the hon. member for East London City will concede that proportionately it is not keeping abreast with the other costs of abattoirs. Those were the two most important points concerning which there were serious misgivings here. I would particularly like to thank the members who helped us when we needed help against the economists and the lawyers. When those people tackle you, even the Prime Minister and persons of his calibre need help. I want to thank both sides for not having attacked us too much and for supporting us as far as the legal aspects are concerned. But I would still like to say this to the hon. member for Green Point: When the lawyers argue over matters of law, then we ordinary farmers keep quiet, and when such as the operation and management of an abattoir, then he should rather leave it to us practical people. If he does that, then we, with the help of the Abattoir Commission, will ensure that he and those around him will get good, sound meat with which he may with an untroubled mind entertain people from any place whatsoever.

We shall also give him kosher meat.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, when we last discussed this Bill, we also requested that the debate be adjourned so that members on this side of the House could be given an opportunity to make a proper study of the Bill. I must say that we now have an example here of how, when one is given an opportunity to study a Bill properly, even though it is a long and complicated piece of legislation, it frequently leads to us on this side of the House being able to support the hon. the Minister. In particular I want to say that we are pleased that he is now making provision for an Agricultural Reference Board, as is being proposed in clause 3, so that if there should perhaps be delays when it comes to the registration and issuing of certain permits, this Board could then take action. It is not necessary for me to give an account now of everything which gave rise to this, but the hon. the Minister explained to us that frequently there are members serving on these control boards who are also members of co-operatives, or members of institutions which may be affected as a result of the applications which come before that control board for consideration; and because it is compulsory for such representatives to recuse themselves when decisions are taken which affect themselves or their co-operatives or institutions, this kind of thing has frequently led to delays for the public and for the private parties who made application. For that reason we are pleased that steps are at least being taken now to prevent this type of incident. What is interesting, however, is the number of members who will serve on this Reference Board.

The hon. the Minister has the right to appoint three members and in addition a further two who may be ad hoc members. I think the Minister will have to take us into his confidence to a greater extent during the Committee Stage, or, if the hon. the Minister so wishes, in his reply, and make it clearer who he envisages should serve on such a Reference Board. In the first place one can understand that it will not be a person who is involved in the industry, but it is nevertheless necessary that a member of such a Reference Board which has to decide on important matters in the place of a control board, should be a person with very intimate knowledge of that specific industry. It is not being stated very clearly although, if my memory serves me correctly, it is provided that the two ad hoc members may be appointed on the ground of their knowledge of the particular matter. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the position is in regard to the chairman and the two other members.

We welcome the co-operation which may take place between a control board, and another control board, or even any other person. In this connection I am referring to clause 6. It is very clear that there are control boards which act of their own accord, but that can just as easily perform a similar function together with other control boards. Here for the first time the possibility is being created for such control boards to be more efficient and at the same time effect a greater saving for the industry concerned, for the expenditure will certainly be shared. We were informed that the Dried Fruit Board and the Deciduous Fruit Board are already acting in tandem under specific circumstances. It is now being made legally possible for them to do this. We on this side welcome this new development and hope that it will be of great future benefit to our agricultural industry.

The last clause I want to deal with, is clause 14. I am omitting to discuss the others because I feel they should preferably be dealt with in the Committee Stage. Clause 14 deals with the question of quality stamps which may be imprinted on our products and their containers, etc., by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. It is the opinion of this side of the House that the more quality stamps we can have on our products for our local as well as our overseas markets, the better it would be for South Africa. In addition, there is no doubt whatsoever that we are entering an era in which competition, particularly on the overseas market, will become fiercer and keener all the time. Consequently, the more we can encourage our farmers to produce and supply quality products, the more this will mean to them. It will also, in equal measure, mean more to South Africa, if we are able to compete with overseas products. There is no better form of encouragement than that a farmer should see a quality stamp on his product wherever it is marketed, here or abroad. If the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is of the opinion, with this suggestion, that it will mean more for South African agriculture, we want to tell them that we congratulate them on this, for we know that they are thinking in the right direction on this matter.

Consequently there is nothing further we differ on in this legislation, and we shall accept the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, when we take cognizance of the fact that the hon. member for Newton Park has no objection to this Bill, it is once again an indication of how well this country is being governed.

This is good legislation.

It is good legislation, and it comes from two good Ministers of Agriculture. We are very pleased that hon. members on the opposite side of the House welcome this Agricultural Reference Board. I do not think we need argue about the principles contained in this legislation, and in addition I do not think the hon. member for Newton Park need be in any way concerned about who the members of that Agricultural Reference Board are going to be. I think we could perhaps inform him that the permanent members will be persons with an extensive knowledge of the agricultural control board system, and that the two ad hoc members will have special knowledge of the specific matters which will be discussed at such a meeting of the Agricultural Reference Board.

When one discusses marketing, it is a good thing to say that marketing and the improvement of that process has to do with all the stages of the agricultural product, from the point of production to when it is exported. We are therefore dealing with efforts which are intended to develop agricultural economics to greater heights. We are dealing with effective marketing sectors, and I feel that these effective marketing sectors are not merely a link between the buyers and the sellers. In my opinion, they play a dynamic part in the stimulation of both production and consumption. What is more, they play a very important part in ensuring constantly improving quality. I could perhaps quote an extract from the penultimate report of the agricultural organization of the United Nations, in which they stated that this effective marketing sector “assists on the one hand and it activates new demands by improving and transforming farm products and by seeking out and stimulating new customers”.

This legislation which is before the House, stems from a sincere desire on the part of the authorities to bring about further stability and greater efficiency in agriculture and its related industries. In addition it keeps a watchful eye on good quality. This is as I interpret clause 11, namely that there will be greater stability and better efficiency, and that a watchful eye will constantly be kept over all these factors. But more than that, I interpret that clause as meaning that the authorities are trying to effect sound relations among the canning firms, and among producers and canners. I think that this clause will contribute to the grading of products taking place on a very sound basis. As a person who comes from the Boland, where fruit is produced on a large scale, I am able to speak from experience. In the past there was an issue, or issues …

Grapes?

No, I am not referring to grapes; I am referring to apricots, peaches and deciduous fruit. The producers and canners or purchasers were frequently taking issue with one another in regard to the grading process. This legislation is simply endeavouring to ensure the best results for the consumer, the producer and the canner. It is in the interests of all the organizations which are concerned with our fruit.

By establishing good qualities, I think that we shall succeed in building up a good and growing outlets. This is particularly important to the industry in the Western Cape, since we are definitely going to encounter problems with the European Common Market when it comes to the marketing of deciduous fruit. I think that once we have passed this legislation and it is being applied, we will be able to rely to an increasing extent on a top quality produce, a produce which we need not be ashamed of; a product with which we will not have to struggle to retain our markets abroad or develop them further. I do not think we need tell the farmer that he should produce a better quality product. Our farmers are proud of the fact that they are quality conscious. They are proud to be able to give the best their farms can produce. They are proud to be able to build up a good name for themselves, for they know—and this is probably the reward they receive—that they may also, as a result of that, rely on a better price for their product, thus making their farming practices more profitable. It is interesting to mention that the per capita consumption of fresh and canned fruit in our country is still relatively low in comparison with other Western countries.

However, we must remember that as the standard of living of the inhabitants of our country rises—particularly those of our various Bantu peoples and of the Coloureds—and as they earn larger incomes, there will be a greater market for these products of ours in our own country. For that reason we will have to continue to give them a better product. In the Third Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture, Chapter 7, paragraph 7.3.7., I also read these significant words—

The report states further—

This legislation is probably another consequences of the findings of this commission. It is, therefore, a privilege for me to welcome this legislation and to give my firm support to the motion of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester has spoken of the good work done by the control boards and has indicated how much he welcomes this legislation. I want to say that I agree with him that, up to a point, the control boards do an excellent job of work. I want to say that this legislation is an improvement and, therefore, as indicated by my friend, the hon. member for Newton Park, we will support it. Like the hon. member for Worcester, I want to use this opportunity this afternoon to say something about the function of the control boards. I want to bring pertinently to the attention of the hon. the Minister what I believe are certain shortcomings in the system which is being applied, in the functions of the control boards as it is being applied today. I believe that the amendment which we have in clause 3, and also the other amendments in the Bill, go part of the way towards solving the problem which we have. It is quite apparent from the legislation which is before us that also the hon. the Minister has seen the very problems about which I want to speak this afternoon. However, I regret to say that he has only gone part of the way towards solving them with this legislation.

This Bill establishes an Agricultural Reference Board which will have all the powers of an agricultural control board in whose name it acts when a matter is referred to it. It will have the power to consider an application for a licence, particularly a licence to distribute the particular product which is controlled. It will have full powers not only to decide whether or not the applicant should in fact receive such a licence or permit, whatever you want to call it, but also to determine the conditions under which such permit shall or shall not be granted. The decision of this Agricultural Reference Board will, of course, be subject to appeal in exactly the same way as the decision of any control board is subject to appeal; the applicant has the right to appeal directly to the hon. the Minister. What do we find to be the position? The hon. the Minister is to appoint the three members of the board. I want to go a little bit further on the question that was touched on by the hon. member for Newton Park and ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what qualifications he is going to demand from the persons he is going to appoint to this board. There is no indication whatsoever in this legislation as to who they will be, what qualifications they will have, and what the Minister will take into consideration when it comes to appointing this reference board. We have a clue regarding the additional members which he may appoint—he does not have to appoint them in every case—to consider a particular problem, because it is provided that those two members will be appointed because of their express knowledge of that particular subject. So far so good, and we appreciate and accept this. I do not want to be unreasonable or appear to be unreasonable, because we are dealing with something like 21 control boards that are affected by this legislation. Each board is orientated towards its own particular product. To find three people who have at least a working knowledge of all the problems facing all of those 21 boards I know is going to be absolutely impossible. That is why we would like some indication this afternoon as to what the thoughts of the hon. the Deputy Minister are regarding the appointment of these three persons. Is he going to look for judicial officers, for retired judges; is he going to look for people who are farmer-orientated, producer-orientated?

What about the Broeders?

It is being suggested that they might be Broeders, but I think even if they are going to be Broeders they will still be orientated to some or other sector of life in South Africa. But will they perhaps have some association with commerce or with industry, or will they only be associated with agriculture?

You are too inquisitive.

Of course I am inquisitive. The hon. member who sits behind the member who made that remark said that I was inquisitive last year, too, and yet hon. members can see what happened when I was inquisitive last year. We have amending legislation this year. This is then the question: Who will they be, and on what will he base his decision when it comes to selecting three people to serve on this board? I say good luck to him. I say good luck to the hon. the Minister, and I say good luck to the three members of that board. I believe they will serve a purpose, but as I will indicate later, I do not believe this goes quite far enough. We should look for some other solution in regard to this particular matter.

Dealing further with this reference board, I want to ask when it will function. It will function only when a matter is referred to it by a control board. Again we must ask ourselves the question: When will a control board refer a matter to this agricultural reference board? If we have a look at the proposed new section 7C inserted by clause 3, we see that subsection (2) states that it is when most of the members of a control board have recused themselves because they have in one way or another a vested interest and the remaining members do not constitute a quorum and no decision can therefore be taken on a particular application. But there are various questions that arise out of this. Firstly, is the public, and in particular are applicants to these various boards for licences, satisfied that the persons with vested interests always do recuse themselves? This is where I want to be a little critical and where I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister with this legislation has not gone far enough, for three reasons. The first one is that he does not say that a member with a vested interest must recuse himself. The second one is that he does not say that when this happens the board must take a decision. He makes it permissive; a control board “may” refer the matter to the reference board. But a control board has a third alternative, namely just not to take a decision at all and just to leave it and to let it lie and let it hang over month after month. The hon. the Minister shakes his head, but I think he knows that this takes place and that very often an application for a licence to these boards is shelved and shelved, because, and I want to say this in all seriousness, of vested interests on that board. Control Boards generally are producer-orientated, or manufacturer-1973-03-26 or processor-orientated. If one goes into the Act, one finds that control boards are representative of the producers, the processors or the manufacturers of a particular product. When there is an application for a licence, for instance an application to the Wheat Industry Control Board for another bakery permit, there are on the board representatives of vested interests in that particular industry. The hon. the Minister knows that every baker is tied in one way or another to a mill or to a milling concern. He knows also that the milling concerns are represented on the Wheat Industry Control Board. How do these people sit in judgment on an application by an independent person who seeks a bakery permit and who might tie himself to a rival milling concern? I know that there are cases where the members have recused themselves but I also know that there have been cases where applicants have been most dissatisfied when receiving a notification “we regret to advise you that your application has been refused”. When they ask for reasons, they are either told “we regret we do not give reasons why applications are refused”, or else they receive a statement reading: “We are satisfied that there is sufficient outlet for our commodity and that the establishment of a further licence or permit is not necessary.” I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that not only must justice be done, but justice must also be seen to be done. We have the situation where the hearing of the applications by the board is open to the applicant, his attorney, his representative, his witnesses; but the final deliberations when the decision is taken are conducted in camera. Nobody has access to the final deliberations and nobody knows whether interested parties, those with vested interests, did in fact recuse themselves. I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister or to the Minister that the way of satisfying the applicant is to provide him with a copy of the minutes of that meeting which will show not only who was present and whether in fact those with vested interests, did recuse themselves, but also the deliberations of the board and the reasons why the application was rejected. I say this in all seriousness in an attempt to rectify what I believe is something that has gone wrong.

We have the situation here in Cape Town and in the Western Cape regarding the distribution of fresh milk where at the moment there are only three wholesale distributors who have pasteurizing plants. Any milk which is to be distributed, can only be pasteurized milk, so that in effect there are only three wholesale distributors of fresh milk. I admit that they do supply pasteurized milk also to other distributors. But what was the position a few years ago? There were then four distributors of milk. The fourth distributor started to supply milk to supermarkets that chopped the retail price. The consumption of milk immediately increased markedly. The hon. the Minister is aware of this fact. He knows about it. But the other distributors did not like it, because the bulk of the milk was going through the supermarkets. So, what was the result? The three distributors who are presently in the market formed a consortium bought out the fourth and went to the supermarkets and said “no more milk for you, chaps”. They are now supplying the supermarkets, but they are supplying the supermarkets under conditions, and one of the conditions is retail price maintenance. The supermarkets have to undertake not to cut the price of milk at all, not to use it as a loss leader, not to give the housewife the benefit of the profit which they are allowed in terms of the control scheme, not in any way to reduce the price. Sir, I believe that this has created monopolistic conditions. I believe that this has created conditions which are not in the best interests of the people of South Africa, either the producer (the farmer) or the consumer (the housewife), because if the supermarkets or the retail distributors were allowed to cut the price and if we had the phenomenal increase in consumption that we had when this happened a few years ago, then the producers would be in a better position because they would be selling more of their product and the consumers would be in a better position because they would be getting it at a cheaper price. If a middleman wants to sell at a loss, it has nothing to do with the control board. I believe that because of the way in which these control boards are functioning, you are developing monopolistic conditions in this country of ours. The same thing applies to the Meat Board regarding butchers’ permits. The same thing applies to the Wheat Industry Control Board regarding bakeries, to the Dairy Board regarding household distributors of dairy products, and to the Milk Board regarding wholesale distributors of milk. Sir, we also have the same sort of conditions developing with regard to other control boards. I believe that the hon. the Minister must have a further look at this and go a little bit further than he has gone here this afternoon with this legislation.

Sir, the other question that I wanted to ask the hon. the Minister was whether he would consider amending this new section 7(c)(ii) in such a way as to make it mandatory for a control board, firstly, to come to a decision within a certain period and not to shelve the decision. In another clause of this Bill we are fixing dates on which applications will be considered or by which applications must be submitted. As we are doing that, Sir, I wonder if we cannot also have a provision fixing dates by which the control board shall have considered the application and either have reached a decision or have referred it to the Agricultural Reference Board. This should not be permissive as it is now under the new section 7(c)(ii), where the control board may refer the matter in question to the reference board. I admit that it is provided here that “if so directed by the Minister it shall” refer this to the agricultural reference board, but I believe that the word “shall” should be used all the way through; I believe that the new section should provide, firstly, that the board must make its decision within a limited period and, secondly, that if having considered it, it cannot come to a decision because most of its members have a vested interest and have to recuse themselves, then it shall refer the matter to the agricultural reference board.

Sir, clause 11 of the Bill is an interesting one and one which I believe is necessary. It has become necessary because of the actions of certain producers who, one might almost say, were guilty of sharp practice, except for the fact, of course, that if you are producing a product and you can get a cent a lb. more somewhere else, you are going to take that extra cent. The principle which is now being introduced in clause 11. that the board concerned will instruct the producer that he must supply in the proportion to which he has contracted to supply in relation to other producers is all very well in a season of short supply, but what are we going to do when there is an over-production? Is he still going to stick to his proportionate supply? Can he compel the packer or the processor to take the extra production which there is? The Deputy Minister says he will reply.

But there is another interesting thing which arises here. I wonder whether the boards really have enough work to do, because we now have a provision introduced here that all these agreements which the producers, the farmers, enter into with their packers or processors, have to be submitted to the board for registration? Can one imagine the administrative work involved?

It is common practice.

It is common practice to submit it to the board for registration, and that the board controls this?

What they actually want is the date.

What they want is a date? Wait a minute, I think we are talking about two different clauses. I am referring to clause 11 and the agreements between a producer and a canner or processor, where the producer enters into two separate agreements. All these agreements must now be submitted to the respective control boards for approval and for administration.

We have an interesting provision in clause 15 where the Minister is now asking for power to pay a subsidy from a levy which has been collected. I know it is not a new principle. I believe this is required for the Oil-Seed Board because they want to raise a levy on oil-cake, because of the shortage which is developing in this country, and they want to use that levy to subsidize the import of oil-cake, which is very expensive outside the Republic. But what I mean when I say this is an interesting situation, is that the shortage of oilseed in this country has come about primarily because of the introduction of yellow margarine. The extra oil-seed which is being taken up in the manufacture of yellow margarine has resulted in this shortage. Here we have the situation now where a levy is going to be raised against the user of oil-cake to subsidize the import of further oil-cake for the manufacture of yellow margarine. And this happens at a time when we are exporting butter at a loss. Now, Sir, do you wonder why I say to the hon. the Minister that he must do something about his boards? Here is one board exporting fat (butter) at a loss and the other board is raising a levy to subsidize the import of fats to manufacture yellow margarine in competition with butter. Sir, if ever we had a vicious circle in South Africa I believe it is this.

Now, I do not believe that this vicious circle is so vicious that we should oppose the Bill. I believe there is merit in this Bill. I believe the matters I have raised should be aired in this House and I hope the Deputy Minister will give me replies to many of the queries I have raised. I appreciate having had the opportunity of discussing it this afternoon.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has once again’ in a typical manner, tried to cast suspicion on the control boards. He spoke of the shortcomings which might exist and which had to be rectified and he insinuated that there were many more shortcomings. He did not mention them; he spoke of monopolistic tendencies which existed. He also made all sorts of other insinuations. He expressed doubt about the bona fides of members of the control boards, about their taking their decisions in the best way possible. Sir, I think that is reprehensible. Our control boards have the enormous and difficult task of regulating the marketing of agricultural products in this country. They are people who do this job of work voluntarily, usually producers, farmers, who sacrifice their time and energy to do this job of work for their fellow-farmers. It is to be regretted that the Opposition cast this suspicion on them. I think this legislation merely seeks to obtain better co-operation amongst the boards and the smoother operation of the boards.

I want to refer to a few important aspects of this legislation. In the first place there is the Reference Board, which, to my mind, will be able to fulfil a good function in that it will fill a gap left by the absence of a quorum on a control board. As it happens, most of the control boards accepted this amendment. Another thing I want to point out is that their terms of reference are very limited indeed; they may only deal with registration, permits and the appointment of agents. For that reason I regard this Reference Board as an important step in the right direction, for I can see that the time will come when we shall have to make more use of a central board with even more powers than even our control boards have. In consulting the report of the commission of inquiry into agriculture, I read in the summary—

I do not want to suggest that we should grant these powers to the Reference Board, but if we do admit the existence of this need, I think we may well consider possible lines of action to be taken by such a board. As a possible line of action to be taken by such a board in future, I see, in the first place, a co-ordination of control boards and concerted action by control boards. In the second place I see as a possible development, such a body advising the Minister as to when it will be in the interests of the country for control boards to co-operate or as to when it will be in the interest of the country for certain things to be done.

I notice that the new section 7C provides that a control board is to do certain things in their discretion and if they feel that they are not able to do them because they do not have a quorum, they may refer them to the Reference Board. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District referred to this as well. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I think he should retain this provision. I feel that a control board is a responsible body which can decide for itself whether it is unqualified to do a certain deed.

Certainly not “unqualified”.

In this regard I want to mention that the Citrus Exchange is rather worried about this regulation. The Citrus Control Board appointed the Citrus Exchange as secretary of the board and consequently they are all interested parties. Therefore the Citrus Exchange is worried that this legislation may affect their functions as secretary of the board with regard to matters such as the cold storage of fruit and the leasing of their building. I should like to have the assurance of the hon. the Deputy Minister that this function will not be affected by the legislation.

Next I come to clause 6 on which I also wish to say a few words and which deals with the joint committees of control boards. It has already been mentioned that here we have one of the aims which I mentioned earlier on, and that is closer co-operation amongst boards. We may get the plant improvement schemes envisaged by the Deciduous Fruit Board, the Dried Fruit Board and the Canned Fruit Control Board for the cultivation of virus-free material. This is a very important aspect of the supply of sound plant material to farmers.

Another aspect in regard of which they may act, is the advertisement of products. It may be necessary, in the interests of effective advertising, for various boards to co-operate. Then there is another possibility, and that is that advertisements which are published to advertise various products, may clash. For instance, one may read, “Eat Butter”, while another may read, “Do Not Eat Butter”. We have already had such a case. I think it is a good thing for the various boards with more or less similar interests which may clash, to have talks on these matters. Clause 6 is also subject to approval by the hon. the Minister. I think it is good that this is the case. In clause 14 we also have, as several hon. members have already said, a very interesting point on which I, too, want to say something. It deals with the quality control of products. To an increasing extent we should be able to give the guarantee that the products which we sell meet the qualifications laid down and that the products have been inspected. In the report of the Reynders Commission I read something interesting with regard to this. It points out that many South African exporters are obviously not sufficiently aware that packing and labelling represent an integral part of product planning and presentation. Then the Commission recommends with regard to product policy, quality and design, that the Government should give serious consideration to certification mark schemes for products intended for export and that the services rendered by the SABS should be brought to the attention of exporters. With regard to branding and packaging, it was said that exporters should give more attention to these things, bearing in mind particularly the requirements of the markets abroad. I believe that in future we shall have to give even more attention to these aspects, that we shall have to ensure not only that the quality of what we wish to sell is in fact contained in the can, but also that the can bears a certification mark of the quality of the contents. We also find that the South African Agricultural Union made a recommendation in this regard. The Agricultural Union said (translation)—

Now I have only one misgiving with regard to the inspection mark. In the past the inspection mark has always been a sign that the product has been rejected. Therefore, if one saw the inspection mark on a box of export oranges, one immediately knew that that carton or container had been rejected, either because it contained spoilt products or because the fruit was below standard. If a new mark were to be created now to be the guarantee of quality, it must be a totally different mark and not merely the rubber stamp which the inspectors put on the product at the moment. Something completely different would have to be devised in order to get away from that stigma of rejection. For that reason I should like to see a great deal of attention and thought being given to the kind of mark that will be used for this purpose. As the SABS-mark has become a mark of quality in our industries, so this inspection mark may in future be a guarantee of the product, be it a canned product or a fresh product, to the public.

In the clause dealing with the levying of fees on uncontrolled products, to which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District referred, I think the idea embodied in the clause is a very sound one, i.e. that a levy may now be placed on an uncontrolled product as well. Mr. Speaker, I do not have the misgivings which that hon. member has, for I see in that the beginning of control being exercised over such a product. It is the first step. Once they have imposed a levy on their product, I think they are not far removed from asking for their product to be controlled in future, for example, in terms of present legislation, they may become integrated with another control board and may subsequently request their own control board. I believe that this legislation will help our control boards to get our products to our consumers in a good condition.

Mr. Speaker, I want to confine myself more specifically to the establishment of the Agricultural Reference Board and its function as such, and not to the broad outlines of the Bill itself. Before proceeding to do so, I want to say that in my opinion the hon. member for Humansdorp has really done the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District a disservice. He has accused him of something which is not true. The hon. member sitting on my side, mentioned control boards and the staff of control boards and the problem which had been experienced in the past with regard to the membership of control boards. Previous Ministers of Agriculture were, like the present Minister of Agriculture and all of us, worried about the establishment of control boards and the method of nominating members to the control boards. After the hon. member had made the accusation against the hon. member on my side, he went even further and said that the Agricultural Reference Board would be an umbrella board to which other boards could refer when they felt incompetent to take a decision. Surely this is not so. Surely the Agricultural Reference Board has special functions. Before coming to its functions, I want to point out that the Agricultural Reference Board is a small board consisting of a chairman and two members only. It is not specified anywhere how the members and the chairman will be nominated or on the strength of what qualifications they will be appointed. The hon. member on my side of the House who spoke a few minutes ago, pointed out, since we had a case in the past, that a board which was so small and was to have such wide powers was unable to take a decision when something was referred to it, not because of incompetence, but because of the interests of its members. For that reason the members of such a board should have wonderful qualifications. One would have expected it to have been written into the legislation that one of the members should, for example, come from the producers’ community, one from the South African Agricultural Union and one from the consumers’ organization involved in the matter. One would have expected a list of persons from the above-mentioned organizations to be submitted to the Minister from which he could make a choice. However, this is not mentioned in the legislation at all. In terms of the Bill as we have it before us, the Minister may appoint any three persons at his discretion. In addition to this, he may appoint another two persons in an advisory capacity. In respect of them it is laid down that they must have special knowledge of the functions which they will have to fulfil. Now that I have dealt with that, I want to go a little further to the functions of the board. The functions and powers of the Agricultural Reference Board are only that when a control board as such does not feel itself competent, because of the interests of its members, to take a decision with regard to a matter, first-mentioned board will take the matter into consideration. To my mind one cannot get away from the fact that the Minister will have a very big problem to find people who are qualified to serve on such a small board to decide on matters of other control boards, whether it is the Meat Board which is not able to take a decision because of the interests of its members, or whichever board it may be. Although it is laid down under the Marketing Act that there must always be a majority of producer members on control boards, large sections of such boards, and especially the Meat Board, do not consist of producer members. If that is the position, surely the hon. the Minister will have infinite problems with the constitution of the board and to select people who have sufficient knowledge of the functions of all those various control boards. Those people may be called upon to take decisions in respect of any board at any time with regard to marketing or anything else.

Only with regard to new applications for registration.

Not only with regard to applications for registration, for the definition is much wider than that. It is clearly stated here which functions they will fulfil. They may decide on any matter with regard to which a board finds itself unqualified because of personal interests; they may take a decision on behalf of any control board.

But the only time this can happen, is when they have to decide on a new registration for a butchery or something like that.

Surely the hon. the Minister is again dealing with the meat industry when he speaks of the registration of a butchery …

But surely a control board has to decide on the application for a new registration, no matter which application it is, be it for a bakery or for a distributor.

It remains a problem to me, especially if there is no clarity as to the appointment of the members of the reference board. What qualifications must they have for taking decisions of this nature? I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us in his reply what his views are in this regard, whether he wants it written into the legislation and how the matter is going to be carried into effect. We shall be very grateful if he would do that. We are going to support this legislation, but the hon. the Deputy Minister must give us clarity on these matters about which we have doubts, so that we may frankly say that there are no more problems in the legislation as far as we are concerned and so that we may support it whole-heartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by dealing with the hon. member for East London City. Like the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, he also had reservations about the constitution of this reference board and who the members will be and so forth. In the legislation it is quite clearly stated that there are going to be three permanent members as well as two ad hoc members. I take it that the three permanent members who are considered will be three people with a knowledge of the system of control boards. It may be people with a knowledge of the marketing board, which, after all, deals with all the control boards. It may be former members of that board. It is difficult to say today who they are going to be, but they will be three people with a knowledge of the system of control boards, or in other words, people with a knowledge of the Marketing Act and its implementation. I hope I am making it clear enough. The choice of the two ad hoc members will be based on their knowledge of the matter in dispute. Therefore it will really be easier to find two people such as these. It is always difficult to find competent people, and we have to be satisfied with the second best if we cannot find the most competent people.

You only have to look for them on this side. [Interjection.]

I want to assure the hon. member that we shall appoint him if we really need him and if he is suitable.

With regard to the standpoints put forward here by the hon. member for Humansdorp, I want to say that I am glad that he has put in a good word for the members of the control boards. We agree with him on that score and we are certainly appreciative of the good work done by the control boards and of the members who are, to a large extent, doing this work on a voluntary basis because of their interest in the industry, and not so much from a financial point of view, but because they have for years been associated with the industry. With regard to the reference board, the hon. member feels that the function of the boards should be retained and that it should not be transferred to the reference board. With regard to that, I want to give him the assurance that there is no intention at all that this reference board should take over the functions of the control boards. This also serves as a reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. When the control board is faced with a problem, as has been the case with two of the control boards—we can foresee that it may also happen to others in future— when a matter, in which some of the members have an interest, is included in the agenda, these members will recuse themselves on account of their association with the matter. Examples of this are permits which have to be issued or, in the words of the hon. member for Pietermaritsburg District, matters “from which they may gain financially”. In the past it was the practice—and this was also laid down in the common law—that a person has to recuse himself if he has any interest in a matter such as this. But it may happen that the board is short of a quorum because so many of the people serving on the board have to recuse themselves on account of their knowledge of the industry. Under those circumstances the chairman and the secretary will refer this matter to the reference board. This will come from the board itself.

You say “will” whereas the Bill reads “may”.

After all, the discretion rests with the board concerned. I cannot see why the Bill should lay down something else. If there is a quorum, why would the board allow the powers and functions it has to fulfil, to pass out of its hands and leave it to another board?

And if there is no quorum?

If there is no quorum, it is at its wit’s end and at a complete loss. In the case of stagnation, provision is now being made for reference to a higher body such as this.

The Bill does not compel them to refer the matter.

Precisely. I am sure hon. members will agree with me that they do not have to refer a matter. They must not be compelled.

They must.

This is something they will have to decide themselves. I should not like to take away those powers from a control board. I should prefer not having to refer any matters to the reference board; otherwise the reference board is likely to take over the functions of the control board ultimately. Surely that is not the intention of this legislation.

May I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister? If a board cannot take a decision on account of its members’ interest in the decision it has to take, and if the board has to refer the matter to the reference board, how then is a decision taken on that matter?

Surely that board would then be stagnating with regard to that matter under discussion. The only solution—and we are now creating the machinery for it—is to appeal to another board, to put it that way. It now has the opportunity of referring a matter in respect of which—on account of its constitution at that moment—it cannot make a decision, to a body which can do so on its behalf. To my mind this is a most practical thing to do by providing such a method of solving the problem, a solution the boards are able to use.

I want to agree with the hon. member for Humansdorp that greater co-operation between the boards is of utmost importance. In fact, I would say that it is obviously desirable that more of these boards should co-ordinate with regard to the functions they fulfil. For example, I have in mind matters such as transport and advertising abroad. There is definitely plenty scope for co-operation between these boards.

With regard to the inspection mark, the hon. member expressed anxiety that problems may arise in this respect because, when a mark appeared in the past, it was always a rejection mark. I am convinced that with everybody’s co-operation, this quality mark will quite soon be accepted just as a SABS mark, namely a mark indicating quality; that the public will take notice of this and that it will be in the interest of the industry and especially in the interest of those who concentrate on the production of products of a higher quality.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District said that this legislation is not intended to solve the problems of the control boards and that it does not go far enough. The hon. member said that he was sincere in putting forward certain complaints. I am not being serious in saying this but I hope he does not intend to put us out of business as M.P.s

*I have already explained to the hon. member the position with regard to the three permanent members and the qualifications these people will have, but I want to reply to one question the hon. member put here, and that concerns the question when the members should recuse themselves. It is difficult for something of this nature to be laid down precisely in legislation. This is something we can debate at great length. I am convinced that every one of us sitting here who has been chairman of a meeting, has been faced with this problem. It is not so easy, but it is something which is laid down through practice and by common law. It is not easy to lay this down in legislation, and that is why even the legislator tries to avoid defining it.

Then I want to thank the hon. member for Worcester for his contribution.

Where is he?

He apologized for not being able to be present here. Then I also want to thank the hon. member for Newton Park for his support. Where hon. members do have reservations about certain clauses, we can reconsider them during the Committee Stage. I want to agree with the hon. member that this measure will definitely fill a gap in the agricultural industry.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members will notice, this Bill is by and large a consolidation of the laws under which the payment of—

is regulated in terms of those Acts. The only significant difference is the one contained in clause 3(c), in terms of which aliens who have not acquired South African citizenship may, after a period of residence of five years in the Republic, qualify for a social pension on condition that they have been allowed to reside permanently in the Republic or have in another way been exempted from the provisions of the Aliens Act.

The position at present is that in terms of existing legislation aliens who are war veterans may qualify for veterans’ pensions after a period of residence of not less than five years.

All we are doing here now, is to bring the requirements in respect of old-age pensions, disability pensions and pensions for blind persons into line with the requirements for war veterans.

This, therefore, is the only material change which we are effecting by way of this Bill. Hon. members may therefore ask in all probability what the object of this measure really is. The reply to that is a very simple one, namely that we want to simplify matters for ourselves. As hon. members know, hardly one single year goes by of late without concessions of some kind or other being made in respect of social pensions.

Every time this happens, it means that four sets of regulations have to be amended in order to give effect to the concessions envisaged. This procedure is time-consuming and in fact quite unnecessary if one considers that the regulations by which the administration of the respective pensions is regulated are by and large the same, and that the same object can be achieved as effectively by way of a consolidated measure.

That is precisely what we envisage now, and I trust that the consolidation of the provisions relating to social pensions will also make it easier for the public to determine the circumstances under which a person qualifies for a social pension.

The intention is that this Act, as was the case with its predecessors, will, in so far as it relates to the various sections of the population, be implemented by several departments, as was done in the past.

Hon. members will notice that clause 19 of the Bill provides that the new Act shall not apply in respect of the Coloureds of the Republic. This is being done because the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council intends passing its own legislation on the matter under discussion and has requested that the new Act should therefore not be made applicable in respect of the Coloureds.

Having made these comments, I think, Sir, that I have said what needs to be said in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that this measure before the House is mainly a consolidating measure, although it does entail that in certain instances the position in so far as certain social pensions are concerned is affected. However, the Bill does, in terms of the schedule, repeal most of the existing legislation affecting social pensions, and obviously this will mean that the Aged Persons Act, the War Veterans’ Pensions Act and the Disability Grants Act and the Blind Persons Pensions Act will also be repealed.

There are certain matters that we would like to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the various pensions this Bill deals with. First of all, we appreciate the fact that the means test for all groups and types of social pensions is now being put on a similar basis and therefore there is really no necessity to have separate Acts for the different types of social pensions. However, when one takes into account certain other aspects in regard to this measure, one realizes that there are certain matters which we would like to discuss in some detail. Some of these matters we will raise in the Committee Stage. However, it is evident that at this Second Reading we must raise certain aspects of this legislation.

The definition of a war veteran is embodied in terms of clause 1 of the Bill, which means that the War Veterans Act will be repealed. I know that there are a number of war veterans who will be sorry to see this Act repealed, because they have always considered their pension to be something different from the ordinary type of social pension. I think it is a pity that this particular Act is being repealed in terms of this Bill before us. The hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned certain other aspects whereby it becomes evident that some of the special privileges which were afforded to applicants for war veterans’ pensions we no longer applicable; for instance, the amendment contained in clause 3, reducing the period of residence whereby a person who is not a South African citizen may apply for a social pension, to five years, which is exactly the same as for applicants for war veterans’ pensions. The matter of dealing with social pensions in one Bill is something we support, and therefore we do not intend opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a pity that certain other amendments have been introduced in this legislation. Here I would like to refer to the definition of a war veteran in terms of clause 1 of this Bill. If one looks at this definition, one observes that it is a definition which, in the main, has been taken over from the War Veterans Pensions Act of 1971. This definition of a war veteran did not refer to the racial group to which an applicant might belong. Indeed, other legislation has been passed to alter the position, whereas in the past we had a definition which specifically mentioned the various racial groups. In that definition it was defined as the White persons, the Coloured persons, the Indian persons and the Chinese persons who could qualify in terms of the definition of a war veteran. That was merely changed to “persons” without any reference to the race, but with a certain proviso. I think it is unfortunate that this definition is now repeated in this legislation with the proviso at the end of the definition of “war veteran” which reads as follows—

The effect of this particular proviso is that the situation is continued which we believe is an unsatisfactory situation where one particular racial group is specifically precluded from enjoying the really small benefits which are derived by being classified as a war veteran. I refer to the fact that Bantu persons will continue to be disregarded as war veterans.

Order! That is going beyond the scope of the Bill.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the Bill which is before us and which incorporates a definition of “war veteran” which will preclude a specific group. I understand from its long title that this Bill is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to pensions. It is repealing an existing Act. I submit that I am dealing with a definition which is before the House at the present time and it will be in order for me to do so. Had it been possible, we on this side of the House should have liked to move an instruction that that particular provision be deleted from the definition of a war veteran. However, as I understand the rules of the House, because this will mean that additional expenditure will be involved and the scope of the Bill will be extended, it is only in the hands of the hon. the Deputy Minister or a Minister to move such an instruction or an amendment at the Committee Stage. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to take into consideration the possibility of moving an instruction or an amendment at the Committee Stage with a view to eliminating this part of the legislation which is before us which is discriminatory and which perpetuates a situation which we believe should not be continued.

Order! The hon. member is going beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall obviously obey your ruling, but I should like to mention that on a previous occasion, in 1971, when this Act was amended we were allowed to discuss this aspect.

Yes, and I have allowed the hon. member to discuss it now, but he must henceforth deal with the Bill. I have allowed him to have his say on the matter, but he must now come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is discussing the question to whom this Bill will apply. He cannot move an amendment, but can he not suggest that there should be an extension?

I have allowed him to suggest that.

I submit that, during the Second Reading, when we are discussing the principles, it should be in order for him to say to whom this Bill should apply.

Well, I have allowed the hon. member to state his case.

Mr. Speaker, there are other aspects of this Bill with which one can deal and if it is your ruling that you do not want me to pursue this matter, I must obviously abide by your ruling.

The question of entitlement is an important one in terms of this legislation as it is often said that a social pension should be regarded as a privilege. I believe that the legislation before us states it clearly to the public that it is a right in terms of the legislation to claim a social pension if the requirements in terms of the law are met. In this connection I refer to clause 3 which provides—

The clause then proceeds to deal with the various requirements which must be met by a person in order to claim a social pension. I think it is important that the general public should be made aware that this is their entitlement, that they are entitled to claim such a pension provided they meet the necessary requirements as outlined in terms of other clauses of the Bill and the regulations framed thereunder. We believe that the entitlement to such benefits should be brought to the fore in a more forceful manner by the department to ensure that these people are aware of their rights and their entitlement. In connection with other legislation, which does not deal with social pensions, but with war disablement pensions, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions was fit to introduce an information brochure which has been of great assistance to those persons seeking benefits in terms of the War Pensions Act. In view of the fact that we have now consolidated the various social pensions—and the hon. the Deputy Minister in his speech has indicated that by consolidating them the position will be made clearer to the public—I believe that we should take this a step further. We should see to it that the public is made aware of its entitlement; the department should take further steps to see that people are aware of their pension entitlement.

There are other points which hon. members on this side of the House will deal with. We shall also raise, in the Committee Stage, the question of bringing about a change in the period of five years for a residential qualification. We support this as there are obviously people who are in need, and who have been in need in the past, who have been precluded from obtaining benefits by virtue of the fact that because they were not South African citizens they had to wait a longer period. I do hope that the persons who wish to claim these benefits will see that it is in their interest to become South African citizens, because they can then claim their pensions without having to wait a further prescribed period.

The question of the means test is dealt within terms of regulations and it means that amending legislation has to be introduced almost every year. Almost every year amending legislation is introduced in this House whereby the various Social Pensions Acts are amended to incorporate budget proposals and improvements in concessions in the regulations which form part of the Act. These persons are then able to obtain certain relief in certain instances. The manner in which these applications are received and the manner in which the people are dealt with is of prime importance in the bringing about of a good relationship between the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and the general public. I do not want to reflect in any way on the staff of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions as there are undoubtedly many people on the staff who are dedicated and who endeavour to assist applicants to the best of their ability. In many of these cases they are able to assist them by giving them advice to ensure that they claim the maximum pension to which they are entitled. It is, however, important in the appointment of officers and departmental officials to ensure that these people are informed fully of the position in terms of this legislation. The question of making this information available to them readily is of great importance to these people so as to ensure that they are fully aware of the amount of pension they are entitled to.

In conclusion I would like to say that the majority of these provisions meet with the approval of this side of the House. We hope that this will bring about a situation in which many of the persons who wish to make application for social pensions will be able to see more clearly what their entitlement is, and that they will receive the assistance this legislation is obviously aimed at providing. We support the Second Reading of this measure

Mr. Speaker, the concluding remarks of the speech made by the hon. member for Umbilo were mainly concerned with the action taken by the department. They also concerned certain matters which he felt would have to be handled by the department now that we have consolidated some of these Acts. One matter mentioned by the hon. member was that we should keep the public better informed of the fact that this legislation had been consolidated and the rights to which the people benefiting by this legislation could lay claim. Then the hon. member went on to say that the way in which an application was being made and the way in which applications were being handled, were damaging the good relationships between the public and the department. I think that it is necessary for us to say the following at this stage, further to the remarks made by the hon. member for Umbilo: I have been a member of this Parliament for a number of years. My colleagues and I, and I have checked this, have handled many pension cases. We find that whereas people previously used to come to us for information and whereas they used to bring the forms to us so that we might complete them and we had to perform a host of other activities in order to help these people with pension matters, those activities have, as it were, been taken from us in the last few years. The way in which this happened was in fact striking. I get far fewer cases of people coming to me about pension problems or asking me for information in respect of pensions. That is not because there are fewer people who have problems; it is because the department has become so approachable for them and because the people do in fact know how the department operates. I also think that it is only fitting that in respect of this matter, the very good relationships between the public and the department, we should express a word of thanks here to the Ministry and the officials for this state of affairs which has come into being over the years. Furthermore, the way in which legislation is handled, the consolidation thereof which rounds off the legislation, only goes to show how his department would like to handle the matter. This makes it easier for us and also for the public. Today we have another example here of how, in respect of the activities of the department, a method is initiated which is to the further benefit of the public. I think the public is already aware of the good work being done by the department. I agree that should it be necessary, we should bring these facts more pointedly to the notice of the public, that we should make them known to the public. I want to state that the public has over the years become progressively more aware of the activities of the department. They have found a sympathetic audience in the department and a pleasant atmosphere among the officials in which they can discuss their problems. It is a fact that cases are traced by the department and handled in a sympathetic manner, and that the public feels attracted to the offices of this department. I think that it is necessary for us to say this in this House.

As was said by the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Umbilo, this is only a piece of consolidating legislation. Actually, it is logical that this should be so, especially after we have reached the stage of the equalization of the means test for all groups of beneficiaries. As the hon. the Minister said, instead of dealing with four or five pieces of legislation we are only dealing with one, and, along with that, instead of dealing with four or five sets of regulations, eventually we shall also have only one regulation relating to this legislation. There is little in this which has not been taken over from existing legislation. Apart from other minor matters here and there, I think that the main difference is the residence qualifications for aliens. I think that these are also more in keeping with what is happening in practice. I believe that in the past there were aliens who, even though they had not yet complied with the residence qualifications, were helped by the department for humanitarian reasons. What we are doing here, is to help these people through legislation rather than by another means.

Now, there is another matter which I want to submit for the consideration of the Minister and his officials. Clause 3 tells us what persons are entitled to social pensions, inter alia the aged person. Now I want to say that times have changed. If one may believe what was said by A. G. Visser in his poem ‘Toe die Wêreld nog Jonk was” (When the World was still Young), there was a time when people aimed at reaching the age of one thousand years. We know that poem about Methuselah who sat pondering in this townhouse near the church: “So sit en peins hy menigmaal: Die duisendtal sal ek nooit nie haal.” (He often sat and pondered thus: I shall never reach a thousand years.) As I have said, the target was a thousand years, but in our times the target probably is only a hundred years, and to reach a century we would have had to be bountifully blessed. I believe that it is an achievement to live to be a hundred, and it is in fact an achievement if one considers how the radio takes cognizance of it by congratulating people on an achievement of this kind, and how the newspapers also write about it. This is therefore still something for us to aim at. I believe that in this legislation we are really making too little of these people who become 100 years old. They are benefited where we talk of “aged persons” in the legislation, but I think we make too little of these bitter-enders. I have tried to obtain statistics on the number of centenarians in South Africa at present, but all I could get was 90 odd, and even that is not a large number. In my constituency—I do not know whether it is the good Rand air or the good M.P. who operates there—I have had to do with centenarians on various occasions. Only last year—and I want to mention the person by name—old man Payne, a real old gentleman, turned 100 years on 11th May. He can still hold a good conversation and he is not even deaf yet. If I am not mistaken, old man Payne still reads without spectacles. This is an achievement, and I feel that somewhere in this legislation we should just give a little special attention to these people, so that the State might also indicate in the legislation that it is taking cognizance of them. There are some of them who receive their pension as aged persons and also some of the special allowances mentioned in the legislation. However, I wonder whether it would not be a good thing for us just to indicate somewhere in the provisions that these people should receive special treatment that we should help those who do not receive pensions. This old man to whom I have just referred, gets no pension. For a 100 years he has stood on his own two feet and is still looking after himself. This is an achievement. Because we take note of an achievement of this kind, we should from our side grant such a person a certain small pension or gratuity or we should provide that as soon as a person attains that age, he should automatically be considered for an old-age pension and everything that goes with it. I really feel that since we specifically mention our war veterans and give attention to their circumstances, we should also give special attention to those who have reached the century. There are some of them, as I have said, who are in fact taken into consideration when we talk about aged persons. They receive the attendant’s allowance, and so on. I wonder whether we could not make provision for them somewhere in another clause or in a subsection of clause 3. As is also said in that poem of A. G. Visser’s to which I have referred, this is after all an achievement: “Die feit is daar; Van toe tot nou, het hy die langste aangehou.” (The fact remains that to date he has lived the longest.) These people who have attained the age of 100 years, are the people who have lasted out the longest. We shall do well to take note of that.

Then I just want to touch on another matter. The regulations will also provide how and where pensions are to be paid out. That is mentioned in the clause dealing with regulations. The Post Office, inter alia, acts as an agent for this department by paying out pensions monthly. I believe we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Post Office officials who pay out pensions at the counter. I have nevertheless received complaints occasionally. This usually happens towards the end of the month when the Post Office is rather busy and some of the officials do become a little hasty with those aged persons who are inclined to take their time a little and have many questions to ask. In all courtesy I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it would not be possible once again to ask this friendly agent, the Post Office and its officials, particularly in the larger centres, where there is usually a throng of pensioners on pay-day, to put some of their most sympathetic officials on counter duty. Even if it were to take a day longer to pay out those pensions to the aged, please let there be a person who is prepared to listen to all the complaints. Usually they do not have the solution, because the problems must be rectified at the pension office; but please let there be a sympathetic person who will see to the problems of our aged.

I think that I have said what I wished to say in respect of this matter, but I want to repeat that the way in which the department handled this legislation in respect of pensioners in the past, is really a feather in the cap of that department. Here we have further finishing touches being added to the good work done over the years. We take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I find myself in a position where I should like to join the hon. member for Germiston in pleading for people aged approximately 100 years or more. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister may perhaps accept the plea made by the hon. member for Germiston and my further plea. There is something which can be done in respect of centenarians and people who have already passed that age. I think the time may have arrived when we may exempt those who served in the 1906 Zulu revolution, those who were protesting burghers in 1914-'15 and those who served in the First World War in 1914-'18 from the means test. The hon. member for Germiston may find that he will have to support us this afternoon; because this is a positive step which can be taken. People who served in the Anglo-Boer War are already exempt from the means test. Possibly we can now extend this exemption somewhat so as to include also these three groups of people whom I have mentioned.

Then I should just like to raise another matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister. In clause 12 provision is made for the appointment of district pension officers. This afternoon I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider, in consultation with the Minister of Post and Telegraphs with whom his department co-operates very closely, appointing also postmasters as district pension officers, or perhaps as assistant district pension officers. This is just an idea. You know, Sir, from time to time concessions are made in respect of the means test in legislation and regulations, but the problem one has to contend with is that the aged do not know about these concessions. I believe that if they may approach the post office, the post office may serve as a source of information for these people, where a notice may be displayed on the notice board and pamphlets may be distributed from which our aged may obtain this information. The hon. member for Germiston said that the number of people who approach him for information on pensions was decreasing. I think the hon. member has lost contact with his voters. In my constituency old people come to my office daily in order to obtain information on pensions. The hon. member for Umbilo, and many others including myself receive letters daily from people who do not know that in terms of new concessions they qualify for pensions. Now I want to urge the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon to give his favourable consideration to putting into effect a much better method of informing the aged of concessions which are made. I believe that there are thousands of people today who do not know that they qualify for a pension, or who do not know that in terms of new concessions they qualify for higher pensions. Therefore, my suggestion is that this department must consider the appointment of postmasters, too, as assistant district pension officers, so that our old people may approach them and obtain information on pensions. This is a service which we can render. In Johannesburg—this is also the case in other large urban areas— there is one district pension officer, and he is in the centre of Johannesburg. Old people who want to apply for pensions or who have problems, must travel from the periurban areas to the centre of Johannesburg to obtain information at the department’s office or to solve their problems.