Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the commencement of the present Soil Conservation Act, considerable progress has been made with the combating of erosion. This applies in particular to land which had previously suffered from neglect and misuse. The strength of the Act lies, firstly, in the provisions in terms of which persons may be ordered by means of a direction to comply with soil conservation measures. In addition, there is authorization for steps to be taken against persons who persist with malpractices. Almost 9 000 cases of land abuse have been investigated since 1970, but up to now, only 178 directions have been served. This may be largely attributed to the success which has been achieved in prevailing upon people, by means of guidance and persuasion, to put a stop to malpractices. The credit for this must go to officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and to enthusiastic members of soil conservation committees. I should like, on this occasion, to pay tribute to the small group of inspired people for the dedication with which they are performing their very difficult task.

That people certainly do pay heed to directions is evident, firstly, from the fact that it has only been necessary to prosecute 24 people for contravening such directions. Furthermore, veld deterioration and erosion were effectively halted on many farms when farmers began to comply with the necessary soil conservation measures. In fact, certain of the farms on which directions were served have recovered so beautifully that they can indeed be held up as examples. A restriction on the number of animals which may be kept on a piece of land is one of the most successful methods for enabling the veld to recover. While it has been necessary to force this upon some farmers by means of directions, the same limitation has been brought about on a voluntary basis under the stock reduction scheme. More than 7 000 farmers in the arid regions participated in this scheme, the sole purpose of which was to improve the grazing. Fortunately, the period of the stock reduction scheme happened to coincide with the abundant rains in recent seasons, which had a very beneficial effect on its results. However, the scheme has led to a significant change in attitude on the part of farmers in respect of the advantages of smaller numbers of stock and judicious grazing.

Therefore, the first half of the seventies has been characterized by an effective Soil Conservation Act, supported by one of the most ambitious schemes for improving our pasturage. After many years of labour and guidance on the soil conservation front, I am surely entitled to speak of a break-through in this field. I can assure hon. members that unwilling and uninformed persons have been and are dealt with very gently. A great deal of attention is given to them, and steps are taken against them only when attempts at persuasion have met with no success. On the other hand, the statutory provision for the serving of directions must be absolutely correct in order to ensure effective action in cases where persons persist in harming agricultural resources. The Bill which is before the House today is intended, amongst other things, to effect minor adjustments in this regard to render the Act even more effective.

I have already referred to the serving of directions in which limitations are imposed upon the number of animals that may be kept. It is true that such limitations will restrict the farmer in certain respects, but they should always take into consideration the practical farming situation. The present provisions are not sufficient to cover the circumstances encountered in practice. It is now being proposed, therefore, that a conversion factor be laid down in a direction for the purpose of calculating the number of stock when large stock is replaced by small stock, and vice versa.

†We have so far been reluctant to serve directions for the construction of soil conservation works. The erection of key works by farmers has, however, become extremely important to expedite progress in the conservation of soil. In future it will therefore become necessary to serve directions for the construction of certain works. It would appear that the existing provisions to serve such directions are insufficient and the necessary proposals to supplement it are contained in the Bill.

Once a soil conservation work has been constructed in terms of a direction, the maintenance thereof is imperative to ensure the continued beneficial effect thereof. At present only the person who has constructed a work is bound to maintain it. It is now proposed that the obligation be extended to include successors in title to such a person.

A work which benefits the soil conservation effort as a whole could possibly increase or decrease the value of land. The present provision which authorizes ministerial intervention in disputes regarding such increases or decreases could lead to involvement in personal quarrels between neighbours. We feel that such intervention should be restricted to works which have been constructed in terms of directions. An amendment in this connection is therefore proposed, as well as guidelines for the determination of compensation.

The site of a soil conservation work and the locality where direction is applicable, can best be indicated on land by means of beacons and marks. Authority to erect or effect such beacons and marks is therefore proposed for persons administering the Act. It is also proposed that it shall be an offence to damage or otherwise tamper with such beacons or marks.

Up to now officers always had to attend prosecutions to give evidence regarding the particulars of directions and of their authority to declare it applicable to land. Although they have thereby gained valuable experience, there has never been any dispute about the facts of their testimony. It would appear that such evidence could just as well be substantiated by the submission of certified statements during prosecutions. Provision for the acceptance of such statements as evidence is therefore proposed. This will enable the officers concerned to spend their time more industriously to promote soil conservation.

*The expression “food for progress and peace” has been used repeatedly. However, without productive soil it will not be possible to produce food for our ever-increasing population. Soil is our country’s most precious asset, and it is the duty of our generation to leave a better preserved South Africa to the rising generations. The proposed measures are considered necessary in order that those who are still unwilling to carry out their responsibility towards conservation may be persuaded to contribute their share.

The proposals embodied in the Bill have met with the approval of the S.A. Agricultural Union.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I find myself again in accord with the Government. I hasten to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we on these benches will support him this afternoon in this amendment to the Soil Conservation Act.

We do, however, have our reservations concerning the Bill. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is quite right when he pays tribute to the stock reduction scheme, which is now entering its closing phase. I believe that the stock reduction scheme has—in conjunction with the good rains the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to—resulted in an improvement in the veld in those particular areas where it applies. I want to say to him and to the hon. the Minister that I was extremely pleased when I had the opportunity to run through that part of the Karoo, the northern and the eastern Cape, in September/ October of last year, to see the tremendous improvement there had been in the veld of that area. However, at the same time I must issue a warning and refer the hon. the Minister to an article which appeared in Landbounuus a couple of weeks ago in which the director of the North-eastern Grassveld Region brings pertinently to the attention of the hon. the Minister and the department the fact that the grass veld in the central areas is deteriorating.

I wonder why it is deteriorating and I hope the hon. the Minister does not wait until it has deteriorated to the extent to which the areas of the Karoo have deteriorated, before he does something to reinstate that veld and before he does something to assist the farmers to reinstate the veld in that particular region. I do not claim to be an expert or to know everything about that particular region, but the item appeared in Landbounuus, it caught my eye and I commend it to the hon. the Minister so that we can avoid a smash like we had in the Karoo in previous years.

The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned that the Bill was designed to assist with the administration of the Act, and we particularly welcome those provisions in the Bill which are now finally putting teeth into the Act. As an ex-chairman of a soil conservation committee, I must say that one of the factors which annoyed us more than anything else was the fact that we could never get the department so far as to assist us in a prosecution of those persons who did not act in terms of the Act. From the provisions contained in the Bill, it appears that at last we are going to have some teeth and that we are at last going to take action against those people who are denuding the soil of the Republic of South Africa. I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister when he says that food for peace is what we need. But we are not going to be able to produce the required food unless we look after the soil on which we are supposed to produce it. Those farmers who do not look after it, are going to have to be compelled to do so. For that reason we are prepared to accept these provisions and to support the hon. the Deputy Minister, particularly in respect of those provisions which allow for a direction to be served on a landowner to carry out certain soil conservation works. We are, however, sad when we realize that the legislation does not apply in those particular areas where it is needed most of all, i.e. to the African areas. This has always been a matter of regret to this side of the House, and I want to repeat today that those are the areas which are being denuded more than ever. If only the authorities concerned, in particular the Department of Bantu Administration, were able to apply the provisions of this Act to those areas, they would become self-sufficient in so far as the production of food is concerned. They are, however, being hampered by the fact that this Act does not apply in those Bantu areas. Again I want to plead from this side of the House with the hon. the Minister and-the hon. the Deputy Minister to take this legislation into review and that we should consider applying certain provisions of the Act to the Bantu areas of the Republic of South Africa.

In regard to the grass veld of the north-eastern Cape in particular, I want to refer particularly to clause 2 of the Bill, which allows the department of the soil conservation committee to allow for a substitution basis of livestock; in other words, to allow mixed flocks—I do not know if it is a mixed flock of sheep and cattle or whether it is a mixed herd of cattle and sheep—to be part of the farm plan. Above all we welcome the provision which provides for a substitution basis. In other words, large-stock units might be substituted for small-stock units and vice versa. We particularly welcome the provision which allows that a ratio can be fixed which may not be exceeded by the farmer. In other words, if a farm is planned to allow for 100 large-stock units with a ratio of 10 small-stock units to one large-stock unit, the farmer should not be allowed to simply change from his 100 large-stock unit to a 1 000 small-stock unit, because that can do more harm than good. The stipulation of a maximum beyond which the farmer may not exchange, is sincerely welcomed.

Unfortunately we have problems regarding the provision for the serving of a direction. I believe the hon. the Minister is being a little bit unreasonable when he asks us in this House to allow that an officer may serve a direction on a landowner simply by publication in the Government Gazette. I believe the hon. the Minister is going a bit far when he asks for that. If the name and/or the address of the owner of a property is not available— and I do not believe that we have many such cases—then the hon. the Minister can ask for this power. However, it is going too far when the hon. the Minister asks for power in terms of which the notice of such direction shall be served personally on the owner or shall be published by the Minister by notice in the Gazette without any further qualification. The provision should be qualified to provide that in those cases where the owner cannot be traced or where he is unknown—which does happen, unfortunately, more often than not in Natal where there are certain farms which are owned by Blacks and to which this Act does apply—the notice should be served on the occupiers of the property and that the notice could be inserted in the Gazette to notify the owners properly. In circumstances where the true owner of the land is not known and where it can be ascertained who those owners are only after a lengthy investigation, this procedure should be followed. I am glad to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister is nodding his head, because we will move an amendment to the effect during the Committee Stage and I sincerely hope that he will give it his favourable consideration. The hon. the Deputy Minister is now shaking his head. Just as I thought I was getting somewhere, the hon. the Deputy Minister starts shaking his head; so we do not agree.

When I explain it to you you will agree with me.

Amendments have been placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Barberton which will be the cause of discussion during the Committee Stage when we consider their implications.

However, I want to go no further at this stage than to say that we welcome this legislation. We hope that the measure is going to have the effect which the hon. the Deputy Minister quite sincerely hopes that it will have, namely the control and the protection of our soil and our land. With those words we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to hear that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South agrees that the Act should be given more teeth. Normally, he is the hon. member who is renowned in this House as being opposed to teeth in any measure. Consequently, we are particularly pleased that he agrees with the teeth now being given to the legislation. That hon. member is also worried about certain matters, about certain veld conditions in certain areas. Had he read the legislation, he would have seen that there was a provision, I think it is in clause 2, which provides a formula for the ratio of small stock to large stock. This provision is being inserted as a direct consequence of a situation which has developed in these areas as a result of the stock reduction scheme, in that due to the withdrawal, the grass and vegetation has developed in a different way to normal. Hence the singular type of utilization of this sort of veld. However, I think that the department’s regional offices, which operate in this field and are based in those areas, are fully aware of those problems. That is why this provision is included in the Act, namely the specification of a formula according to which the relationship of small stock to large stock has to be specified for a particular type of pasture. Problems are continually being experienced in making soil conservation measures enforceable and certain administrative problems are also experienced with regard to their implementation.

I think we have to view this Bill against the background of two phases in the development of soil conservation practices in South Africa. The first phase is what I want to call the persuasion phase. Hon. members will remember the period when soil conservation in South Africa was given tremendous publicity. “Love of the soil” was one of the most popular themes used on farmers’ days and even in the urban areas. Hon. members will also remember that we had the Festival Year of the Soil with the theme “Soil is life”. The old Soil Conservation Act of 1946 was amended during this period of persuasion as well. Hon. members will remember that the functions of the soil conservation committees at that time consisted chiefly of holding farmers’ days. Much greater powers were vested in them than is the case today. The soil conservation committees of today are of a purely advisory nature, but under the old Act of 1946 they even had enforceable powers. They could even serve directions on farmers and could even institute prosecutions. However, this was not the chief function of the committees because farmers did not like to prosecute their fellow farmers. My standpoint, however, is that the basis of soil conservation practices in South Africa lay in these old soil conservation committees. Consequently, I think we must pay them glowing tribute today for the work they did.

We then reached the second phase. The second phase emerged after the Act of 1969, which was essential. At that time, the enforceable powers which the soil conservation committees had, were transferred to the hon. the Minister and greater authority was vested in the department. In the nature of the matter, the soil conservation committees became purely advisory bodies. Of course, one still found a few remaining farmers and land-owners in South Africa who still did not apply soil conservation practices. These were not people to be swayed by persuasion. In other words, directions were necessary. After all, it is only necessary to serve directions on a man who is not prepared to apply soil conservation practices in South Africa. Hence this legislation. Its aim was to make the second phase more appropriate. The last few people of this type are normally the most difficult; they are the ones who always find certain loopholes in the soil conservation legislation, hence these amendments.

I think we have made very good progress with the soil conservation effort in South Africa and for that reason, the introduction of these measures is aimed at giving the legislation more teeth, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has indicated, and this is most essential. Consequently, we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support this legislation, of course. Nor do we do so with a “but” or anything of that kind. However, I want to bring one point to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The success of any soil conservation scheme is of course dependent on fencing, to make the necessary rest periods possible, on the provision of water and, thirdly, on the limitation of stock. The Soil Conservation Act makes provision for these aspects, of course, but there is a further aspect which I must mention. At the moment, subsidies for boreholes for stock watering purposes still fall under the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and not under the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. This constitutes a tremendous deficiency in this system because if a farmer applies for a subsidy for a borehole, he has to do so through the Department of Water Affairs. Often they do not have officials at the place in question, and here I have in mind the Karroo in particular. The applicant has therefore to go through Somerset East, and this takes many months. One cannot even get hold of forms. One has to write to Pretoria for the forms and this is a great deal of trouble. However, if this aspect had fallen under the hon. the Minister of Agriculture …

You would have had a quicker service.

Then things could be done quickly because he has his extension officers at the places in question. In any event they carry out the planning of the farms, and while they are planning the camps, fences etc. they could just as well provide for the boreholes as well. This could be done at one stroke. When the boreholes are approved, too, the man is already there and can do it. At the moment inspectors have to be sent from Somerset East and from Pretoria. This simply does not work. That is why I want to address a serious appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture to make representations in this regard to the hon. the Prime Minister. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs is not present. But the ex-Minister of Water Affairs is here—perhaps he will support me in regard to this matter.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South asked, with regard to clause 2, that the formula relating to the ratio of large stock and small stock be laid down and strictly complied with. I just want to point out that circumstances in the Karroo have changed tremendously. The ’sixties and ’seventies have been so different that whereas the Karroo had hardly six inches of rain in the ’sixties, and we in the House were always talking about the drought-ravaged areas there, today we are talking about fires in those areas. The grass has grown to such an extent that the ratio of large stock and small stock which was good enough in the ’sixties, is valueless today. That is why the formula for the ratio will have to be implemented very flexibly to ensure …

Tell us about the position the United Party supporters find themselves in.

Today grass is the problem. One has to keep so much more livestock to limit the grass and combat fires that a fixed formula cannot be implemented. The hon. the Minister will therefore have to apply such a measure very flexibly.

In Clauses 3 and 4 the responsibility for maintenance is laid down in the act. This is a very good thing, because it can happen that someone builds a dam or soil conservation works above one’s farm. When this breaks and another gulley is eroded, one virtually has to institute proceedings against that man. We know about the people who have so much to say here about the rule of law, but I just want to say that when it comes to court cases, the rule of law is only for the rich. Due to the expense involved, no ordinary man can go to court today. Moreover, one does not want to institute proceedings against one’s neighbour. Clause 4 provides that the Minister can intervene to settle the matter in the event of one party benefiting or suffering damage. The Minister will then be able to make a final decision as to whether a certain person has suffered damage.

With these few words I want to support the Bill. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give attention to the few ideas I have raised.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to hear from the hon. member for King William’s Town that he supports this Bill in principle. He expressed a few misgivings. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to what he had to say about the issue of the subsidies for boreholes. As regards the conversion formula in clause 2, I am convinced that the fact mentioned by the hon. member for King William’s Town will be taken into account in implementing this formula.

I believe, too, that he will agree that due to the change in the veld, it is already a matter of urgent necessity for such a conversion formula to be implemented in order to control the ratio between the small stock and the large stock, particularly in view of the fact that the veld has changed, as a result of possible fires and earlier droughts that have affected the quality of the veld. I am very grateful to hear that the hon. member also supports very strongly the matter of maintenance. I think it is in the interests of the soil, the owners and of any country that the maintenance of soil conservation works built may be enforced.

The importance of land probably cannot be sufficiently emphasized, particularly in view of the steadily growing population and, on the other hand, in fact that we have a limited quantity of available land. Therefore it is indeed in part an unequal struggle that we are engaged in. I have read that the population is expected to double within 25 years, which will mean that by the year 2000 we shall have about 50 million inhabitants in the Republic of South Africa and about 81,3 million inhabitants in the year 2020. We in South Africa have a particularly high rate of population growth, one of the highest in the world, in fact, and on the other hand we find that 90% of the arable land is already being cultivated, which is far more than the 80% in Europe and South-East Africa, for example, and a great deal more than the 50% to 60% being cultivated in North America and Russia. What is more, in 1973 our total population was 23 million and in South Africa, on the other hand, there was only 0,57 ha of arable land per capita. In the year 2000 the figure will be an estimated 0,32 ha of land, which is less than the 0,4 ha regarded as necessary to provide a person with the necessary food. This means by implication that the available land we have must be developed, used and protected in such a way that its yield will be sufficient to meet the steadily growing demand for food. To be able to do this it is of course necessary, firstly, to apply the best methods of production and, in the second place, to maintain the quality of the available land and improve it if possible.

It is due to these factors that the Soil Conservation Act was piloted through Parliament as long ago as 1946, and was amended in the year 1969. From 1969 in particular, magnificent work has been done in this connection. The co-operation of the officers of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, of enthusiastic and dedicated soil conservation committees, owners of land and agriculturists have borne fruit over the years. The figures quoted by the hon. the Deputy Minister, namely that 9 000 cases of misuse of land have been investigated since 1970, but that only 178 directions have been served, testify to this.

I think that high praise and gratitude is due to the department for having adopted the policy of preferring to persuade offenders to tackle soil conservation projects by way of correspondence, personal negotiations or both. If this co-operation is not forthcoming, legal action is the only alternative. The co-operation given in recent years is clearly illustrated by the fact that between 1970 and 1975, 8 317 potential problem cases were investigated, 66% of which responded favourably to from the extension staff or a warning from the Division of Soil Protection, whereas negotiations were still in progression 23% of the cases. Directions were eventually served on the remaining 11%, and a further analysis indicates that only 5,4% of the occupiers of land contravened these directions. Only 24 court cases took place over this period. This speaks volumes for the exceptional co-operation there has been between the department and the landowners.

Let me quote a few figures to give an idea of the scope of this work, particularly in regard to that part undertaken by the farmers themselves with the aid of the subsidy system. A subsidy of R20,7 million was paid out for completed soil conservation works over the five years ending in 1975. Over the same period, R22,7 million was paid out in respect of donations for flood damage repair-work and R51 000 as donations in regard to grass ley crops on land. Unfortunately it is still true that the most important work is at present being done on indirect control of erosion, for example internal camp fencing and stock watering points.

Works for the direct control of erosion are still not enjoying the attention they merit. About 95% of the total subsidy is in respect of farm planning and development works such as internal camp fencing and stock watering points.

Although magnificent work has, therefore, been done since the Act came into effect, and the co-operation is gratifying, it is nevertheless necessary that certain adjustments be made, and this has been proved in practice. This is why this legislation is before us at the moment. In my opinion, clause 1 is of particular importance, in the sense that it confirms the status of the regulations as part and parcel of the principal Act, in that they are defined as part of the principal Act. Clause 2 provides for a greater degree of flexibility with regard to the total number of stock which may be kept in accordance with directions. The conversion formula for the replacement of large stock by small stock and vice versa is in my opinion very practical and will be of great assistance to the farmer over the long term. Clause 3 provides, inter alia, that subsequent owners of land on which soil conservation is undertaken according to directions, will also be obliged to maintain the soil conservation. In my opinion it is of special significance that the maintenance of soil conservation should assured for the future, even if the land changes hands, irrespective of whether the land becomes the property of the existing owner’s children or is sold to a new owner, someone who is perhaps less aware of the importance of soil conservation. In this way, however, the maintenance of soil conservation can be enforced. The need for this is obvious.

Disputes between farmers in respect of the benefits or otherwise of a soil conservation project have sometimes caused difficulties and have been a source of embarrassment to the Minister in the past. In terms of clause 4 the Minister is now given the power to intervene in disputes, but that power is of course limited solely to those projects constructed in terms of directions. The amount payable for benefits received or damage suffered must be determined by the Minister. The Minister also serves as an instrument whereby possible disputes which could arise between farmers are eliminated. It is also a good thing and to be recommended that, as is stated in the Bill, certain factors should in fact be mentioned which the hon. the Minister ought to take into account in determining possible damage. Provision is made in clause 8 for a certified statement to serve as a guarantee that an officer acting as deputy has been authorized by the Minister to call for documents, documents which will be recognized by the court. This is a practical amendment and will save senior officers long hours of work. It will also save the State a great deal of money.

Mr. Speaker, it therefore gives me great pleasure to give this Bill my wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Virginia. We on these benches agree that the importance of land in South Africa cannot be overemphasized. We support this Bill.

Apart from the technical improvements which this Bill introduces, I want to state the following. We find no fault in relation to clause 2. It makes provision for a case where a farmer replaces large stock with small stock and it provides for a method of calculation. I tend to agree with the hon. member for King William’s Town that it is better that it should be a flexible situation rather than a rigid one. In regard to clause 3, which provides for the service of the Minister’s direction to construct soil conservation works, I understand that what is intended, is that where a landlord or the person who is to create the works is absent, there will be service by publication in the Gazette. However, I hope and trust that there will be service on the person if he is there; that it will always be attempted first to effect personal service. It is obviously desirable that one should serve on the person if one can, and that one will only rely on service through the Gazette if the person is unable to be served personally.

Clause 4 deals only with cases of directed works and there the hon. the Minister will determine the increase in value to the land without waiting for a dispute, as it were, to become unresolved between the person who erects it and the owner. I believe that is a desirable clause, and we support it. I just want to mention one more small point. On page 6, in line 24, the word “of” should read “with”—“in compliance with a direction…”.

We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is our custom to discuss a Bill at great length when we agree on it. For my part I just want to refer to it briefly and try to confine myself to the minor misgivings which could exist as regards the Bill. I want to refer in particular to the objection raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South concerning the way in which a direction may be served on a man by the department. His objection is based on clause 3 of the Bill which provides that the direction can be served personally or in another way, by notice in the Gazette.

The hon. member is of the opinion that the department or the Minister will evade the first alternative and simply publish a direction in the Gazette. I think that the hon. member’s objection is totally unfounded; in fact, the hon. member for Durban North saw this. We are dealing here with a practical problem, and it is simply impossible to make any other provision in the Bill to provide for when the owner cannot be traced or the owner or person responsible intentionally evades the serving on him of the direction. In a case where a direction cannot be served or where the acceptance thereof is evaded by the owner in question, the solution is that the Minister will have the right to publish the direction in the Gazette. As practical people, the Minister and the Department know that not only our farmers, but some of the attorneys in this House, too, do not read the Gazette. Due to practical requirements, therefore, it is essential that provision be made for this.

I want to point out that there is an amendment on the Order Paper which I intend to raise in the Committee Stage. It relates to clause 4 and concerns the compensation which the Minister can recommend the owner of adjacent land to pay to the person who has constructed the soil conservation works. In terms of the existing Act there is only one yardstick, viz. that of increase in value. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a major change in this regard. Increase in value will no longer be the yardstick; instead, the Minister will now have the discretion to determine, in his wisdom, what the compensation should be. Four guide-lines are laid down in the Bill which the Minister can use as a yardstick in determining compensation. I want to stress that as I understand the Bill, this provision will constitute nothing more than a guide. I want to refer in particular to three guide-lines: that the Minister will have to take into account what the soil conservation works cost, the extent of the benefit which the other person will derive from them and also the extent to which the value of his land has been increased or is likely to be increased. However, in my opinion there is something missing here. The Minister will also have to take into account the fact that the man who built the soil conservation works and who now wants compensation from his neighbour, also receives compensation on his land due to the soil conservation works he has constructed. The basis of the amendment I want to move in the Committee Stage is that in determining the amount to be paid by the neighbour, the Minister must take into account not only the benefit and increase in value which such neighbour derives from the construction of the soil conservation works, but should also take into account the benefit and increase in value from these works derived by the man who built them. I think that this in fact settles the matter in regard to which there was a dispute in this House. We are of course very grateful that the official Opposition supports the Bill. We expected the responsible Opposition to support it, but we were really amazed that even the irresponsible Opposition supported it, too.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, talked about the “verantwoordelike Opposisie”. Naturally, I take that to be the members on my side of the House [Interjections.] That is without question.

I want to refer to the Soil Conservation Act. I believe everybody accepts that this is one of the finest pieces of legislation we have on the Statute Book dealing with the agricultural industry. It is only natural that we should accept this amending Bill, possibly with one or two minor amendments. The theme of the Bill is certainly in line with good farming and soil conservation in our country, but no matter how good a piece of legislation may be, unless we or the Government are prepared to enforce that legislation, it serves no good purpose at all. This has been our trouble in the past. We have found all too frequently that the Act has been ignored, or that it has been accepted by certain parties in more or less a sort of gentlemen’s agreement. This has never been good enough and the industry has suffered as a result. In the past we have seen bitter disputes between neighbouring farmers, which have unfortunately led to Supreme Court cases, costing the different parties large sums of money, and this has possibly been unnecessary, because if the department had acted in good time and in good faith, a lot of ill-feeling and unnecessary expense could possibly have been saved by certain farmers in the industry.

I also agree that the localized soil conservation committees are doing a very good job indeed. Those men have experience in soil conservation. We are grateful to them for what they have been doing and are doing in this regard. Let us also not overlook the importance of our soil conservation “extension officers”. There are unfortunately too few of these extension officers. We do not have many of them in the country, but I am sometimes disappointed to see that there are still farmers in South Africa who do not avail themselves of the services of the extension officers. These are well educated men in this field. Most of them are B.Sc. agriculturalists. The fanners can avail themselves of the services of these extension officers gratis, but refuse to do so, which is sometimes astounding.

Clause 2 of the Bill, dealing with large stock and small stock and the number of small stock deemed to be equal to one head of large stock, is an important clause in that it permits both large and small stock to be kept on the same land. The hon. member for Bethal spoke just now, and I agree with what he said. He spoke about overgrazing of our farm land, particularly grassveld areas. I think he will agree that although one certainly can over-graze, on the other hand, one can under-graze as well. Under-grazing can be just as detrimental and harmful to the veld as over-grazing. Under-grazing means, in other words, selective grazing. Allow me to quote very briefly from the agricultural journal, Agriculture News or Landbounuus. It says this—

This is so true. We have many ways of averting selective grazing. We have various rotational grazing systems, for example the three-camp-system, the four-camp-system and the Acocks system, and these vary from district to district. What puzzles me somewhat in regard to clause 2 is the fact that where large stock and small stock can be kept on the same grazing, the numbers are equal. In most districts, depending on standards laid down by soil conservation officers and soil conservation committees, the ratio varies. In the district where I happen to farm the ratio is one large to six small animals. In other words, if I had one sheep to a morgen, I would have to have six morgen available for one large animal. In other districts where the grazing capacity is even heavier, the ratio may be increased. This is something we shall have to watch continually.

I believe that clause 3, which provides that the hon. the Minister may order the construction of soil conservation works, is the crux of the Bill. It is in this regard that we found some difficulties in persuading our farmers to agree to certain recommendations made to them by soil conservation committees and extension officers. If the hon. the Minister sees that certain areas, particularly the valleys, are being abused, something should be done and the law should be inforced. When it affects neighbouring farmers, I believe the department together with the hon. the Minister can avert a lot of trouble and bad feeling sometimes leading to Supreme Court cases. That is all I have to say at this stage and I, for one, am happy to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support of the legislation. There is no doubt about it that when one has a good case one does not need a lot of people to state the case, but this is certainly not so in agriculture. I want to agree with the hon. member for East London North that the legislation for agriculture as such, and for our soil, too, is probably of the very greatest importance. I want to convey my sincere thanks to everyone who made suggestions in this connection, because I believe that when we introduce legislation of this nature we sholuld not conduct the debates along political lines, but should really listen to each other, because we believe that we all wish to be of service to agriculture.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Bethal for his support and the fine and clear explanation he gave. I think he made a good contribution. The hon. member for King William’s Town is not an easy man to follow, of course, but I want to thank him, too, because he mentioned the difficulty our farmers have, the trouble, as he called it, that is caused because farmers boring for water have to liaise with two departments. We fully realize that this is a problem, but I do want to say to the hon. member that it is not always so difficult. We are dealing here with a matter which falls under the Department of Water Affairs. It is difficult to arrange things in such a way as to have this aspect taken away from Water Affairs on the basis that it belongs in agriculture, with our stock farmers in particular, without confusing matters somewhat in other spheres. We shall therefore have to try to make things run as smoothly as possible. The hon. member did ask us to try to persuade the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard. My hon. Minister said “Hear, hear!” and I must therefore confirm what he said. We should like to have it this way if practicable, and therefore we shall go into the matter.

There are a great many misgivings with regard to clause 2. Actually I am pleased that the hon. member for King William’s Town made mention of the fact that the biggest problem occurring in the Karroo and other parts of our land which previously only complained about drought, is today that of veld fires. It is a major problem, but I do want to say to the hon. member that clause 2 was inserted with the specific aim of making the application of this measure more flexible. It is impossible that in this case we should insert anything into the legislation which did not apply in the same way throughout the country. It is preferable that the legislation be drafted in such a way as to permit flexibility and so that it may be adapted to practical situations. I am sure that when the hon. member sees the matter in this light, he will agree that this is the best way of doing so.

Various speakers on my side of the House touched on the matter of the construction of soil conservation works, and the hon. member for Virginia in particular outlined the matter clearly in reply to the speech by the hon. member for King William’s Town. Then, too, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Durban North on his contribution. I have already referred to clause 2 of the Bill and I think he will agree with me in this regard.

The hon. member for Barberton referred to clause 3. Clause 3 by no means constitutes such an extreme arrogation of power by the hon. the Minister because we are dealing here with what are really exceptionally difficult circumstances. I just want to point out to him that in various parts of the country, the older parts in particular, we have the old so-called fidei commissum farms where the land is passed from one generation to the next. By the third and fourth generations there are so many owners of some of these farms that it is simply impossible to trace all of them. In these circumstances the procedure of serving a direction on those that can be traced, in other words those who remain on the land, and placing a notice in the Gazette for the information of those who cannot be traced, is adopted. This is the only way in which this can be done legally. I thank the hon. member for Barberton for his effort to improve on clause 4, and I assure him that we shall definitely consider it. I thank him, too, for his effective treatment of the objections expressed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the hon. member for Durban North.

I am not surprised that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South supported the Bill. He has complained so much about butter and cheese since he has been sitting here that by this time he is probably a little tired of it. In any event, we are still holding out. As regards the matter of the deterioration of the grassveld, there is certainly something in what he says. We often hear that complaint. Farmers who farmed in the Karroo began to think at one time that there was no grass in the Karroo …

Look at it now!

… and relied almost entirely on the scrub veld of the Karroo. This applies to the Southern Free State too, of course. Now, however, the fruits of the soil conservation legislation are being reaped, with the help, too, of course, of the good rains and the stock reduction scheme. However, there is another side to the matter. If that scrub was to be replaced by permanent grass-veld, the problem would not be so great. However, the process of reclamation is a slow one and in the process one loses valuable scrub veld. The farmer is a very practical man, of course, and he is now realizing that he is having a harder time of it. All I can say in this connection is that constant attention is being given to this matter at various experimental farms, under the guidance of the regional director of the Agricultural College at Middelburg in particular. I foresee that in the course of time we shall have a clearer picture and that we shall have more specific recommendations from that source in due course as regards the use of veld of this type. In any event we are most definitely aware of this problem.

The hon. member also raised the objection that we were not applying this legislation to the Bantu areas. However I think we have argued and discussed this matter at such length already that he will probably accept it if I refer him to what I have said previously about this matter.

I now come to the conversion table mentioned in clause 2. This conversion formula is being proposed specifically with a view to greater flexibility. It seems to me that the hon. member is no longer interested in what I have to say. I think, therefore, that I should rather not deal with the matters he raised. However in connection with the last point he mentioned, I just want to say …

Do not answer him. If he does not want to listen, do not answer him.

After my explanation he must consider whether he should not rather give up his amendment.

I am sure that this debate will serve as encouragement for our farmers to look after their veld better and that it will generate greater sympathy among the general public for the hard struggle waged by our farmers, particularly in respect of our extreme climatic conditions. I hope that there will be understanding of what we envisage with this legislation, viz. to leave the soil of South Africa in a better condition than we, the present inhabitants, found it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, in this particular clause we have an amendment to that section in the Act which allows the hon. the Minister to order a farmer to construct soil conservation works. In the past this order has, by acceptance over the years, been served personally on the farmer concerned. This order is called “a direction” in terms of the Act. Now, however, we have an amendment because of the problems the hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned. I must say, with all due respect, that he has not thereby answered my query in the Second Reading debate.

That was because you were doing other things.

No, there is no need for hon. members on that side of the House to raise any points of that kind. The fact that I had to answer a message urgently is no excuse whatsoever for that. One of our members was talking when I left the Chamber. But I was here to listen to the hon. the Minister, and I thank him for his reply. I repeat, however, that I do not believe that he has satisfied all my problems with regard to this Bill.

You must learn to listen.

No, Sir, I was listening. I did listen to the hon. the Deputy Minister. If he wants to have a fight about it, he knows I am quite willing to have a fight. I am quite willing to have a fight with him over this matter. However, I do not want to fight with him because I believe that, if we work together on this matter, we can get consensus, which, I believe, would be in the interests of the agriculturalists, the farmers, of South Africa—not in the interests of the Nationalist Party or of the Minister who wants to satisfy his own ego. He must not be misled by his colleague, the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior, who sits next to him, because it is the latter’s ego which is making itself felt now. He must prepare his own case and not be misled by his colleague.

Order! The hon. member must return to the clause.

Yes, Sir, I shall abide by your ruling.

You are looking for trouble today.

That hon. Deputy Minister is the one who is interfering in this Bill. He has nothing whatsoever to do with this matter.

To come back to the Bill and to this particular clause, here we have the position that a direction to be served on a farmer shall be served personally on the owner concerned and, if the works are to encroach on to the land of a neighbour, the direction shall be served on the neighbour as well. That is to say, that order or direction shall be served on the farmer, and on the neighbour if the works are to encroach on the land of the neighbour. I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with me. In the English version of this Bill in the proposed new section 4(2)(a)(i) one reads—

Sir, I do not believe that that is good English. I do not believe that the word “too” is the correct word to use there. I have drafted an amendment and sent a copy of it to the hon. the Deputy Minister, an amendment in terms of which I was going to move that the word “also” be substituted for “too”. I then received the following note—

“With which to end a sentence.”

Let me say once again, that “with which to end a sentence” would be better than “to end a sentence with”. However, I am prepared to accept the advice which I have received here and which concludes with: “P.S.: There is of course no difference in meaning”. I can see that there is no difference in meaning, but for the sake of the purity of the language, I wish to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider the following amendment which I now move—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 20 of the English text, to omit “too” and to substitute “as well”;

Not “also”?

No, not “also”, because that is just as bad. “As well”, I would say, is the correct terminology and therefore I shall accept the advice given to me and have moved that we substitute “as well”.

After the provision that such a direction shall be served on certain people, we read as well—

I believe that that is unreasonable. Not every lawyer reads the Government Gazette, let alone every farmer. Therefore I believe that it is unreasonable to ask this Committee to approve that the hon. the Minister, through his department, may serve a direction of such far-reaching consequences on the farmer concerned simply by publishing it in the Gazette. It is all very well for the hon. member for Barberton and the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that this will not be used by the department. That might be their intention today. I accept that it is their intention that it will only be used in exceptional circumstances, but it will be a provision of the Bill and I do not believe that either the hon. member for Barberton or the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior, who is an advocate, will disagree with me when I say that, as the Bill stands at the moment, all the department need do is to publish the terms of the direction and the names and addresses of the persons concerned in the Government Gazette and that that would stand up in court.

The landowner would be bound by that. That is how the Bill is worded and that is what we have to deal with. We do not only have to deal with the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department, but also with the words, the ipsissima verba, of the Bill. The provision says that the direction shall be served on the person concerned and on the person to whom the other land belongs or that it shall be published by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. It shall then have full force and effect. I believe that is unreasonable. Therefore I move as an amendment—

1. (2) On page 4, in line 21, after “shall” to insert:

The effect of this amendment will be that the direction shall be served on the farmer and on his neighbour, or shall, if the name and/or address of such owner or other person is unknown, be published by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. For the same reasons I move as an amendment—

1. (3) On page 4, in line 26, after the second “or” to insert:

This is an amendment to paragraph (b) of the new section 4 where it is provided that the Minister may amend or withdraw the direction or amend the terms and conditions of the direction or suspend it by serving a written notice on the owner or owners or by publishing a notice in the Gazette. A man having received a direction served on him personally which contains certain provisions and conditions with which he is expected to comply, can find that those conditions would be amended simply by a notice in the Gazette. I accept that this is not the intention of the hon. the Minister, but that is what is written into this provision and that is what we are concerned with. For that reason I would urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider the three amendments which I have moved. The first amendment is purely a textural amendment; it is all a question of language. The other amendments I believe are in the interest of the farming community of South Africa and in the interest of a good working relationship and an understanding between the department and the farmers.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is arguing with me because I allegedly did not explain this clause very well, and he said that he listened very carefully. I paid him the courtesy, as he was away, to leave this point open until he came back. After the hon. member had returned to his bench, I explained the matter carefully, but he did not listen. I am completely prepared to accept his grammatical improvement, if indeed it is an improvement. I cannot take it upon myself to say whether the words “too” or “as well” are correct, or which is the better English. I shall accept it if I can get it past the legal draftsmen. I am also completely in favour of what he has in mind here. We are on exactly the same wavelength in respect of clause 4(2)(b), but we ourselves had misgivings about whether it could be drawn up in legal terminology; concerning the same point he raised. Our advice, however, is that it is completely correct and that there are not really any problems in this regard. I know that the hon. member wants to argue on legal grounds, but as we implement the Act, it already involves so much persuasion. So much contact is being made with the people. There is no question of anyone not hearing about it, if he is in fact available. It is only in extreme cases, and I again want to mention to the hon. member the case of these fidei commissum farms where there were so many owners that eventually there was not even enough land to bury all the owners in. Where on earth is one going to get hold of all those people? As a last resort, we publish it in the Gazette. This is only to legalize it, otherwise we cannot take any action. This is our real problem. I want to appeal to the hon. member’s sense of fairness and ask him to be accommodating in this instance, unless there is a way of doing it as he wants it done.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister also accept the second and third amendments?

I should prefer to correct that in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deal with the first or second leg of the amendments moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. They do not seem to make much difference. However, in regard to the second and third points raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, it seems to me there is no real dispute between the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. It is, of course, advisable that it should not be phrased as a simple alternative. I take the point of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South there. The amendment, as it stands now, really boils down to this. If a man’s name or address cannot be established, service can be done through the Gazette. However, there may be other cases. In fact, name and address are not the only things that come into question. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister will not consider something like this, which is, I believe, halfway. Will he not consider putting in after the word “shall”, “if it has not been possible to serve such owner or other person personally”. Really, that is what he is after. He is after serving the person personally, but if he cannot do so, he will do it through the Gazette. I merely want to suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister consider this. I suggest the insertion of the words: “If it has not been possible to serve such owner or other person personally.” As far as I can see, that fits in with the legal requirements. It conveys, I believe, what it intends to convey, and I would like to make that suggestion to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, it appears that all three of us are really ad idem in this respect, and it also appears that the only thing which we lack at this stage, is a suitable formula. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us an undertaking that he will look at this before he goes to the Other Place …

He already has!

In fact, he has given us that undertaking. However, if he will have a look at this before going to the Other Place, I will withdraw my amendments Nos. (2) and (3), with the approval of the Committee.

Amendments (2) and (3), with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (1) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

1. (1) On page 6, in line 14, after “of’ to insert “such owner and”;
2. (2) on page 6, in line 42, after “of” to insert “such owner and”.

I have already pointed out, in the course of my speech during the Second Reading debate, that my reason for moving these amendments arises from a consideration of fairness. Loss of means on the part of both the parties involved, as a result of the erection of soil conservation projects under the particular circumstances, as well as advantages which both of the parties involved derive from the aforementioned projects, are factors which ought to be taken into consideration by the Minister. It was in the light of this that I moved the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I saw these amendments moved by the hon. member for Barberton on the Order Paper this morning for the first time. I must thank him for the courtesy of placing these on the Order Paper, and I must apologize to him and to the Committee for the fact that our amendments were not on the Order Paper, but unfortunately we were not aware of the fact that we would be asked to go into committee on this Bill this afternoon.

Sir, having had a good look at these amendments moved by the hon. member for Barberton, I regret to say that I believe it will be unreasonable to accept these amendments to this particular clause. The situation is this. By direction of the hon. the Minister a farmer can be compelled to carry out soil conservation works which can carry over onto the land of his neighbour. By so doing the neighbour can suffer damage—the loss of land, the loss of the use of land, the loss of grazing, the loss of water … I can think of many things and many ways by which the neighbour can suffer damage. This clause provides that, in the event of the neighbour suffering such damage, the Minister may determine an amount which the farmer will have to pay his neighbour for the damage which he has suffered. That is what we find on page 6 of the Bill, with the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Barberton. We find that determining the amount referred to in paragraph (a), i.e. the amount which the farmer will pay his neighbour—

1. (iii) the extent to which the soil conservation works concerned have or are likely to have a beneficial effect on the land of such other person …

In other words, when the neighbour says that he has suffered damage to the tune of Rx, the Minister, in determining whether Rx should be paid to the neighbour by the farmer, shall consider whether the neighbour has in fact derived any benefit. If he has received a benefit from the soil conservation works, the amount of Rx which the neighbour claims he has suffered, shall be reduced by the amount which is determined as being the benefit he has obtained. That is how the Bill is phrased at the moment. The hon. member for Barberton now wishes to move that the hon. the Minister shall also take into consideration the beneficial effects which the farmer receives from the soil conservation works which he has constructed.

The first point I want to make in that regard is that I do not believe that the department would serve a direction on a farmer to conduct soil conservation works if they did not believe that he was going to get a benefit in any way. It is now expected of a farmer who had been told to construct certain works and went to the expense of constructing those works and received a subsidy on the total costs of the works, that he must pay compensation to his neighbour. He will, in addition to the actual loss the neighbour has suffered, have to pay to the neighbour an amount which the Minister will assess to be the benefit the farmer has obtained from the soil conservation works. The hon. member for Barberton says that the Minister, in determining this, shall take into account—

This means that the Minister must take that as well as the beneficial effect on the land of such other person—the neighbour—into consideration. The Minister must take into consideration the beneficial effect on both farmers; in other words, there will be a debit and a credit. If this formula is applied the farmer who is being compelled to construct soil conservation works on his neighbour’s land is going to be prejudiced, because he is going to have to pay compensation twice to his neighbour: firstly, for the damage which the neighbour has suffered and, secondly, for the benefits which the farmer himself has received.

It is the exact opposite.

The hon. member says it is the exact opposite. I will be very glad if the hon. member after I have finished, will get up and explain me where I read it back to front. I gave this spect much thought this morning. I have gon into it very deeply and I believe that my interpretation is correct.

Let us deal with the second amendment of the hon. member for Barberton. The amendment says—

What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a further clause which provides that—

i.e. the amount which the farmer shall pay to his neighbour—

This, in other words, means that when the Minister considers the compensation which the farmer must pay to his neighbour for the soil conservation works which he has constructed, he shall take into consideration the detrimental effect, the damage, the harm, which the soil conservation works have caused that neighbour. So far, so good. We are prepared to accept that, but the hon. member for Barberton says that we must take into consideration the detrimental effect which these works have or are likely to have on the land of such owner. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, if it is believed or if there is a possibility that the soil conservation works concerned will have a detrimental effect on the farmer, his department is still going to compel that farmer to carry out those soil conservation works. Is the hon. member for Barberton serious when he believes that the department will knowingly compel a farmer—because this is by way of a direction; it is a compulsion and there is no question of a voluntary work here—to undertake soil conservation works, which will be detrimental to himself and his farm?

I believe this makes complete nonsense of the second amendment of the hon. member for Barberton, because I do not believe the department will do that. For those reasons I believe that the amendment of the hon. member for Barberton should not be accepted, because it will be detrimental to the farmer. The first amendment will be detrimental to the farmer concerned, who has already been compelled to carry out work, in most cases possibly at considerable expense to himself. He has been compelled to carry out this work. A double burden is then placed upon him to compensate his neighbour. In terms of the second amendment the farmer is compelled to carry out work which could be detrimental to his farm. I do not believe the department will do that and therefore I submit that the second amendment is unnecessary. Unfortunately, however, we must oppose both these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect towards the hon. member, I do not think that he has read the clause properly.

Explain it carefully.

I shall now explain it slowly and carefully. Clause 4 states that the Minister, on application by a person who has been ordered by him, to complete certain soil conservation works, if that person’s neighbour has derived benefit from them, that is to say, has not suffered damage, may order the neighbour to pay a sum of money to the man who erected the works. The converse is not true, as the hon. member argued. He has the wrong end of the stick. Section 5 of the Act stipulates that compensation must be paid to the man who constructed the works and not to the other man. In other words, the hon. member failed entirely to take into consideration the whole drift of the first amendment. As the proposals now read in the Bill, they mean that all the hon. the Minister has to take into consideration in determining possible compensation to be paid by the neighbour to the person who constructed the works, is simply the possible benefits which such neighbour has derived. There is no provision whatsoever which states that the Minister has to consider the benefits derived by the man who in fact erected the works as well. The hon. member has misread the whole clause and the amendment. The same goes for the following case. He misread this, too. I think that the amendments I have moved, are fair and reasonable. In the final analysis, they are not hard and fast rules, but guide-lines laid down by the Act to serve as a guide to the Minister and his officials in respect of how to go about determining compensation.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept that amendment. The hon. member for Barberton explained the clause very clearly, but despite that, there are still a few hon. members on that side of the House who are not absolutely sure what it is about. The point at issue here is the conservation and improvement of our soil and for that reason, steps are being taken in a very practical and realistic manner. Amongst other things, the Minister is afforded the opportunity of acting as arbitrator in disputes where a direction has, in fact, been served. It must be made very clear that he will not be the arbitrator between neighbours in respect of any works for which a direction has not been served. I think this aspect ought to be clear now.

Mr. Chairman, I want to mention one very small point, not in relation to the amendment, but in relation to this clause. I mentioned to the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate that in line 24 of the English version on page 6 of the Bill the word “of’ should be “with”.

That correction will be made.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I think this must be almost a record for the passing of an amendment to the Soil Conservation Act through this House. I believe that we have done the agricultural community of South Africa a service and that we have made it easier for the department to administer the legislation. I believe that we have done something which can only lead to the benefit of this country and for that reason we shall support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South for having supported the Bill in the Third Reading, despite the misunderstanding that existed between us.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The farmer is expected to produce more and more efficiently in order to provide for the country’s growing requirements. Today, efficient agricultural production is associated with the use of a large variety of chemicals and other remedies. These substances serve to enrich and protect the soil, to increase plant and animal production and to combat diseases, pests and plagues. The nature of such substances necessitates official control over their distribution. On the one hand, the farmer has to be assured of the efficacy of a substance he is using for a specific purpose. On the other hand, man and the environment must be protected against its possible adverse effects. The necessary control over the application and distribution of such substances is provided by the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act of 1947.

Researchers are constantly developing more effective substances. Unfortunately, many of these are not only expensive, but may also be extremely dangerous if they are not administered correctly. For this reason, it is essential that a technical Act such as this one be adjusted from time to time in order to maintain a proper level of control. The Bill which is before the House today for its consideration contains certain proposals in this connection. Furthermore, certain administrative adjustments are also proposed for the purpose of facilitating the administration of the Act.

At present, a substance is only registered if acceptable proof of its effectiveness has been furnished. However, unacceptable production processes and inadequate facilities at the establishment where a substance is manufactured may have a great effect on its efficacy. In addition, there is the real danger that such a substance may spread diseases. Recent observations at certain establishments have revealed serious deficiencies in this connection. It is essential that a farmer should be assured of the effectiveness, purity and safety of a substance when he is using it for promoting agricultural production.

For this reason, it is proposed that the registration of a substance should henceforth depend upon the acceptability of production processes and the adequacy of facilities at the establishment where it is produced. Furthermore, it is proposed that it should also be possible to cancel a registration if the production processes and facilities of an establishment no longer comply with the requirements.

Every agricultural and stock remedy is registered as a remedy for combating specific diseases, pests or plagues. Sometimes, for purposes of sales promotion, people are recommended to use a substance for a purpose for which it has not been registered. Great crop damage and livestock losses have in the past been suffered by farmers who have acted upon such recommendations. This is not beneficial to agricultural production and for this reason, control must be exercised over such recommendations. Accordingly it is proposed that the use and recommendation of agricultural remedies and stock remedies be restricted to the purposes for which they have been registered.

†Farmers are employing contractors to an increasing extent to administer fertilizers, farm feeds and agricultural remedies to their crops and livestock. These services are usually rendered satisfactorily, although some farmers have already suffered crop damages and livestock losses. Such losses can be attributed to the incorrect application of substances, the application of unsuited sub-stances or negligence to apply suitable precautionary measures. Farmers could avoid such losses if they were conversant with the substances used. It is therefore proposed that contractors shall be obliged to furnish farmers with written detail of substances used and of precautionary measures to be taken.

The registrar could hardly be expected to be fully acquainted with all the technical detail of all substances submitted for registration under the Act. Their complex formulations necessitate evaluation by highly qualified specialists. Such specialists are in fact already being consulted by the registrar. Doubt has, however, arisen as to the legal status of their advice. It is therefore proposed that such specialists be officially designated as technical advisers to the registrar.

Locally-produced substances have to comply with certain minimum specifications before they may be registered and sold. The requirements for imported substances are, however, not specified to the same extent. As the importation of inferior substances could jeopardize agricultural production and the local agro-chemical industry, the minimum requirements for importations are specified. Unpredictable circumstances may, however, necessitate exceptions and provision is therefore made that the importation of divergent substances may in such cases be allowed.

The Act could be administered more effectively if the necessary powers are vested in a central person. The registrar is considered most suitable for this purpose and therefore the existing provision to designate inspectors, is deleted. Powers of inspection would, however, be required by the registrar and his staff, and the necessary authority is provided. An appeal against a decision of the registrar usually involves technical detail. The Minister therefore has to rely heavily on recommendations by the registrar when he considers such an appeal. An appeal board consisting of suitable experts would be able to investigate an appeal thoroughly and decide on its scientific merits. Provision is therefore made for each appeal to be referred to such a board which is to be empowered to give a final decision in the matter. Prosecutions are instituted against manufacturers only after repeated warnings to rectify deficiencies. It is most disturbing to note that some manufacturers would pay an admission of guilt fine rather than comply with the provisions of the Act. The only remedy appears to be a substantial increase in penalties, and such provision is included in the Bill. The South African Agricultural Union has confirmed its support for the proposed measures.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has introduced a Bill which contains a number of new principles, but perhaps the most important ones are contained in the amendments to the long title of the Act, i.e. firstly, the appointment of a registrar of fertilizers, farm feeds, agricultural remedies and stock remedies, and, secondly, provision for the designation of technical advisers and analysts and, as the hon. the Deputy Minister so correctly puts it, the placing of their standing and their locus standi beyond any doubt. Let me hasten to say that we welcome these provisions. For too long have these substances we are dealing with this afternoon been cause for concern, substances which, although they have the ability to do a tremendous amount of good, also hold the potential for tremendous harm, particularly if they are not used properly, in the correct admixtures or in the correct environment. For too long we have heard of the fears of health authorities about the use of pesticides and antibiotics, particularly the use of pesticides in trying to control our vegetable industry in this country. We have, in South Africa, possibly more bugs and “goggas” that will eat our vegetables and foodstuffs than anywhere else in the world.

A lot of “Gnats”.

And also a lot of … No, I will not say that. The hon. the Minister will just get cross with me if I say that. The Whip is leading me astray, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think the Whip should do that. As I have said, we have more of these wee beasties in this country than perhaps anywhere else in the world and we have tended, in the agricultural sector, to rely very heavily on insecticides and pesticides in an attempt to beat these insects so that the farmers can produce crops which are a payable proposition. We have heard from health authorities, however, of the build-up of antibiotics in humans who consume these products, and for that reason we are extremely pleased today to hear of the improvements which have been made and of the control we hope is now going to be exercised over these products. We are particularly glad about the provisions contained in this Bill regarding the control of the importation of many of these products because there is no doubt that there are overseas manufacturers who have dumped, in South Africa, goods of inferior quality which we have not been able to control, products which I sincerely hope will, once this Bill becomes law, be controlled by the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department.

There is very little in this Bill of a contentious nature. We shall be moving one or two amendments a little later. I want to say that one of the provisions we welcome in addition to the two main ones is that now for the first time, where an application for registration is turned down, the reasons for the refusal must be given in terms of this Bill. During the debate on the Livestock Improvement Bill I welcomed what was then an innovation. This is the second time during this session we have a provision of this nature in a Bill. I refer to the innovation of the advent of an ad hoc board of appeal. No longer does the onus rest entirely on the hon. the Minister to consider an appeal against a decision of the registrar. Anything to do with the administration of this Act can now be handed over to an appeal body. The hon. the Deputy Minister said quite correctly in his introductory speech that we need experts. This is a highly technical matter. I feel totally incompetent to discuss the technicalities of this matter at all. That is why I can deal with it only broadly and in principle. However, for an appeal of that nature to be properly heard, for justice to be done, we need experts in the particular sphere which is concerned. Therefore we welcome the appointment of this ad hoc appeal board.

However, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to look again at the provisions relating to the appointment of the chairman of that appeal board. The chairman of that appeal board has very wide powers. He has powers that are far-reaching in that they affect other people. He has to determine, firstly, the procedure to be adopted. He is the one who will swear in witnesses. He is the one who will compel people to give evidence. It will be on his say-so that a person will be prosecuted for not giving evidence and for failing to appear. For that reason I believe that file chairman should not merely be a person with a knowledge of the law. Not for one moment do I want to denigrate the officials of the hon. the Minister’s department who are versed in the law and who have legal qualifications. I believe that they are fully qualified and competent to deal with legal matters, but they are not fully qualified when it comes to matters of procedure. In this case I believe a magistrate, a judge, a retired magistrate or a retired judge would be a far more competent person because he will have the experience of conducting this sort of proceeding in an open court. I believe that such a person would be better as a chairman. During the debate on the Livestock Improvement Bill the hon. the Minister of Agriculture refused a similar amendment on the grounds that the chairman of that appeal board should have knowledge of the particular subject which is the cause of the appeal. I must cross swords with the hon. the Deputy Minister in this case—I cannot talk about the other Bill at this stage. In this Bill it is specified that the chairman shall be appointed with only one qualification, and that is a knowledge of the law. The other two members of the board must be appointed because of their particular knowledge of the subject of the appeal. Therefore I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must please not raise that argument when I move this amendment in the Committee Stage, because that argument does not hold water. It will not hold water because this Bill itself says that that person shall be appointed because of his knowledge of the law, and not because of any other knowledge whatsoever. It is not essential that he should have the knowledge which the legal advisers of his department have. I concede that they have that knowledge. They have knowledge of the industry concerned, but I do not believe that it is essential for the good working of this particular appeal board.

The control measures which are introduced here regarding the manner in which a commodity shall be used are also welcomed. However, we are a bit disturbed at the amendment which is to be moved by the hon. member for Malmesbury regarding the removal of the two words “in writing” …

But wait until we get there.

Sir, I do not know why the hon. Chief Whip gets so excited. Whether it is said now or in the Committee Stage is not important. The hon. member is going to start wasting the time of the House again with points of order. I do not believe it is necessary for him to do that at all. I do not know why he is so sensitive.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If the hon. member makes a particular point or a clause into a principle at the Second Reading, is he still entitled to discuss it again during the Committee Stage?

Order! Yes, the hon. member is entitled to do so. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your ruling. With all the humility in the world I must say that there are occasions when we are precluded from debating these matters in Committee because the principle has been adopted in the Second Reading. I want to say to the hon. Chief Whip that that is the reason why these matters are raised in the Second Reading and not in the Committee Stage. These matters do form principles of the Bill and he knows the rules as well as you do, Sir, that I may not discuss a principle in the Committee Stage.

I now come to the question of registration. Up to now the position has been that a person wishing to register a stock feed, a fertilizer or an agricultural remedy has registered that particular remedy alone. The hon. the Deputy Minister said quite rightly in his introductory speech that the situation has arisen where these remedies have been manufactured under undesirable circumstances and under undesirable conditions. It is his intention now to register the premises where these remedies are manufactured at the same time that he registers the remedy itself. What disturbs me about the provisions of clause 3 is that the hon. the Deputy Minister now provides for one registration of the product itself and the premises where that product is being manufactured. Then, when we look at the following clauses—and that is why I raise this matter now at the Second Reading and not in the Committee Stage, because I would not be allowed to refer to the other clauses in the Committee Stage—we find, for instance, in clause 5 that the registration of a fertilizer, farm feed or agricultural remedy shall lapse if the establishment in question is no longer used for the manufacture of that particular product. This means that the registration of the product is tied to the registration of the premises where it is manufactured. I agree entirely that we should have registration of both the product and the premises where the product is being manufactured, but I do not believe that we should tie the two together. If a manufacturer has a stock remedy registered and approved …

Read it in conjunction with clause 4.

Yes, one has to read clauses 3, 4 and 5 together. The effect of reading those three together is that if the premises are changed, if a stock remedy is manufactured at the moment in Cape Town and then, for whatever reason, the manufacturer decides that he is no longer going to manufacture here in Cape Town, but that he is now going to manufacture that product in Port Elizabeth, he loses his registration of the product and he loses the registration of the premises. He now has to start all over again to reregister the product and the new premises in Port Elizabeth. This is why I put this thought to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I accept that they should both be registered, but I feel that they should be separate registrations and not one joint registration. The effect is that if one ceases to manufacture in particular premises and one goes somewhere else, one loses the registration of that product. One then has to start all over again from the beginning.

How do you combine the registration of the product and the registration of the premises?

With respect, if the hon. the Deputy Minister will look at clause 3(2) he will see that—

In other words, he can only register the remedy when he is satisfied regarding the premises. Up to now the situation has been that as long as the properties of that remedy were efficacious and satisfactory he registered that remedy. The producers then continued with the manufacture of that remedy. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister sees a problem in connection with the manufacturing and I agree with him. I accept the principle and I accept what he is trying to do, but I believe that he is doing it the wrong way. He is tying the registration to the registration of the premises, instead of saying that, having had that particular product registered with all its properties and qualities, one must then register the premises where that product will be manufactured, as a separate registration.

Anyway, Sir, this is how I see it, looking at clauses, 3, 4 and 5. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to, we can, during the Committee Stage, consider the matter further. There are one or two small amendments, as I have said, which we will be moving. I believe this Bill goes a long way towards allaying the suspicions of those persons who are worried about the use of pesticides, of antibiotics, of hormones and other such products in the agricultural sector. I also believe that they can be for the benefit of the people of South Africa, that they can protect the people of South Africa. For that reason we will support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude towards the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South for undertaking to support the Bill. However, I cannot understand why it took him so long to convey this. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, this legislation is of the utmost importance to the farming community of South Africa. When one considers its economic importance, one sees that an amount of R933 million was spent on intermediary farming expenditure in 1975. Of this amount nearly 50%—R442 million—was spent on fertilizers, dips, sprays and farm feeds. The amounts spent on fertilizers, dips, sprays and stock feed, were R199 million, R58 million and R183 million respectively. It is therefore of particular importance that proper legislation be introduced in connection with so important a part of our farming requirements. Therefore we are very grateful for this legislation, by means of which control will now be exercised over the agricultural and stock remedies in question.

I should just like to refer to a few provisions, and draw attention to some of their important aspects. Like the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, I also want to refer to clause 3. I should like to divide that clause into three important subdivisions. The first concerns the fact that the registrar must be satisfied before taking any action in regard to these remedies. The second subdivision provides that the registrar must be satisfied that it is in the public interest for a certain remedy to be registered or not registered. The third subdivision concerns the factory or establishment where it is manufactured. Farmers have tremendous problems in this regard. In terms of the present legislation, when a remedy is registered, the registrar has to institute an investigation and inquire as to the effectiveness and suitability of the remedy. I want to lay special emphasis on the fact that particular attention must be paid to this case, because it often happens that a remedy is registered without a proper investigation into the cultivar adaptibility, especially in cases of sprays used as weed-killers. The same applies to the compatibility of remedies. It may happen that two remedies are registered, two remedies which are both entirely effective. However, when the two are mixed and used together, chemical reactions occur which make those remedies ineffective, and even dangerous. This is a very important point to which particular attention must be paid. This legislation also provides for this, but if necessary, special regulations must also be promulgated to confirm this point.

As regards public interest, we know it is possible for a certain product to be registered in a particular area because it will be in the public interest to use the remedy in question there. I have in mind a weed-killer like 2,4D. There is no reason why 2,4D cannot be used as a weed-killer in certain areas, for example in wheat-growing areas where there are no crops nearby which are sensitive to the remedy. However, I am convinced that it would definitely not be in the public interest to make 2,4D available in the Western Cape where there are vineyards close by. We have seen a great deal of damage done in this regard in the past. Fortunately, clause 9 provides that the Minister may prohibit the use of certain articles in certain areas. There may be misgivings concerning the proposed section 7bis(2) as it is set out in clause 9. The provision reads—

1. (a) throughout the Republic or in one or more specified areas …

Some people may consider this a strange provision, but in my opinion the reason for the wording is the fact that certain products may be effective in certain areas but dangerous in others.

As far as the registration of the factory is concerned, I think that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is wrong if he thinks that the certificate issued is locality-bound. I think that the registration is linked to the effectiveness of the factory. It is only logical that this should be the case. In my opinion, if there is a change from one factory to another, the registrar will have to consider afresh whether the new premises and/or factory are effective, because if not, the Minister may decide in terms of clause 4 that the certificate no longer answers to the purpose for which it was issued.

But that is just the point I made.

No, it is not the point the hon. member made.

Then you did not follow me properly.

Another very important matter is mentioned in clause 11. The clause refers to the person who administers certain remedies—in other words, the contractor. This is actually the only clause in which I find any reference to the contractor who administers a remedy. I have some misgivings concerning the clause as it reads at present and therefore I have placed an amendment on the Order Paper and will move the amendment during the Committee Stage. My problem with clause 11 is that, in my opinion, there is not sufficient control over the contractor. I should like to see the legislation, and if not the legislation, then the regulations, being extended to provide for proper inspection of the contractor’s equipment. For example, it must be possible to inspect the calibration of the spray he uses to administer the remedies. It should also be possible to inspect the methods which he uses when cleaning his spraying equipment. These days we make a great deal of use of aircraft for the spraying of lands etc. and in my opinion, it is particularly important that when the person administering the remedy uses an aircraft, it must be ensured that he does not use an engine with insufficient horsepower, because if this happens, there is an uneven administration which can be very harmful. When an aircraft is flying over a field and is approaching the other side, the engine revolutions must be increased a great deal to provide the necessary lift, but as a result an over-concentration of the spray is administered near the end of the field. I believe that the control which must be exercised over the party effecting such administration, must be provided for either by regulation or by means of an amendment at a later stage.

I believe that we are dealing with legislation which will only be to the advantage of agriculture in South Africa and I therefore wholeheartedly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches support this Bill. We regard it as being protective of the public. We regard it as an important Bill. It deals with feed, fertilizers and remedies, which constitute a large proportion of the costs of any farmer today. In this field the farmers are at the mercy of the manufacturer of feeds, fertilizers and remedies, because farmers are not scientists who can analyse all these products. Some of our farmers are scientists, but not all of them. The need for control to be effective, is recognized and a greater measure of control is welcomed. In spite of that I just want to say—unfortunately I know that this is not very popular with farmers, although I am surprised that it is not—that this Bill includes some inroads into the rights of individual farmers and citizens, inroads which I think are not necessary for legislation like this. I am going to deal with that in a moment. Before I do that, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister with regard to clause 6, because in this clause he actually goes the other way and has placed something in the Bill that has never existed before. In the explanatory memorandum of the department the point is made that they now give reasons why they refuse applications, without there being the need to ask for the reasons. It is a less autocratic method of dealing with the situation, and I congratulate him for that.

Having said that, let me say that there are one or two other spheres—which are not really agricultural spheres—concerned with the application of this legislation, where inroads are made into the rights of citizens. I shall deal with clause 14, because that is the one in which we first find the offending principle. In terms of clause 14 there is a change of principle. The provision allows an official to enter your land, allows him to examine things, allows him to see books, documents, feeds and fertilizers, and allows him to take samples and so on. To all these things we have no objection, because I think that all those things are necessary for the control of fertilizers, etc. But what it also says, is—and I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that he is actually changing the wording of the existing Act—that he can exercise all those powers if he has reason to believe that there is something suspicious. The present Act stipulates: “If there are reasonable grounds for believing.” This is not a very strong point, but I nevertheless want to make it, that throughout the years it has been held that an official should have reasonable grounds for believing something before he intrudes on individual rights. It has been properly held that that is an objective test, so that courts, if it ever becomes an issue in the courts, can have a look into it and determine whether he did or did not have reasonable grounds. The court can examine it. If, however, one simply says that an official, if he believes such and such, can enter grounds and seize documents and all sorts of things, it becomes very definitely autocratic.

And subjective.

It is being pointed out to me that it is subjective too, which is correct. That is one of the points I wanted to raise.

I also want to make a second point. The clause also provides for another thing which constitutes an important departure from principle. I am not speaking out against farmers. I have always understood that farmers are independent, freedom-loving people. They stand on their rights, and I believe that farmers must not let their rights be impinged and intruded upon, without putting up some sort of opposition. What happens here is that they can come onto your property and do all these things, which I accept, but then they can also demand an explanation in terms of this clause and if you do not give an explanation, you can be subject to a severe penalty. As I have said when discussing the previous Bill, it has always been foundational to our law in terms of various cases—I mentioned some in relation to the previous legislation—that people are not obliged to answer questions which might incriminate themselves, because the principle of our law is that the State must prove its case. The person who is being investigated must not be required to make a case against himself. In fact, the cases go so far as to say that one should not put questions to people against whom one is investigating a case. Here the provision is made that the person must answer these questions and that, if he does not, he can go to gaol or he can be fined. I suggest that that is an unnecessary intrusion upon people’s rights. What can happen is that if one has reasonable grounds for suspecting something, one can seize documents and all sorts of objects as exhibits, examine objects, etc., and I do not think it is right that one should make it an offence for a man to fail to answer certain questions which might incriminate himself.

Finally, in terms of clause 21 the State is again protected from its wrongdoing in that an indemnity provision is now being inserted. One of the important facets of a democratic society, a society like ours in which we recognize the rule of law, is that if anybody does any wrong to anyone in terms of the law, one has an action for compensation. We have always said that in a democratic society, the State should not be in some kind of special position where it can do wrong to an individual and escape liability, except in times of emergency. Here the State is being placed in a special position in terms of this clause, and I believe that if it negligently causes damage—one must not forget that it has all these rights to come on to your property—against an individual, it should not be indemnified. I suggest that the State should be in exactly the same position as any other individual who comes on to my property and wrongfully causes damage against me. I am not talking of cases where the action is not wrongful, because no action will flow in a court if the action is not wrongful. For example, one might run over somebody’s sheep, but if it is not due to one’s negligence, one will not be liable. I suggest that the inclusion of these principles into an otherwise very good Bill, is unfortunate and undesirable. We shall not, however, oppose the Bill. Because of its benefits to agriculture, we think it should be supported.

Order! Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I just want to point out that it is apparently becoming a custom in this House, when members agree on a subject, for a very wide-ranging debate to take place. I have the names of no fewer than nine speakers in the debate on this measure, about which everyone is in full agreement. Although I cannot give a ruling forbidding this, I nevertheless want to request hon. members to put their standpoints as briefly as possible when everyone agrees on a Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Durban North is unnecessarily concerned about the powers which are being taken in this regard, because they are essential powers. When an inspector inspects a factory and demands certain information, I think he is entitled to ask that it be given to him. Nor do I believe that any manufacturer of such products will mind giving the necessary information.

As regards clause 21, I do not think that the hon. member read far enough. If he does so, he will see that clause 21 provides that—

I think the words “in good faith” are an answer to the hon. member’s problem, because a say that the inspector did not act in good faith. I therefore do not believe that the hon. member for Durban North has any reason for concern.

We find that the farmer in South Africa wages a continual battle against so many factors which are against him. Increasing production costs in particular are gripping him in a vice so that he is making less and less profit. The farmer must be able to cope with disease, plagues, deficiencies in the soil which have to be made good with fertilizer, weeds which he has to eradicate and then he also has to provide his animals with the right feed. The farmer tries to make as little use as possible of chemical remedies in providing all these necessary things. By applying modem farming methods, farmers try to eliminate chemical remedies and try to return to nature as far as possible by breeding parasites to combat plagues of insects. They also try to build up the fertility of the soil by other methods and use fertilizer as little as possible. However, we find that when nature is disturbed by the planting of a crop, it is still necessary to make use of such remedies from time to time. Therefore, even if one has an overall ecological approach to one’s farming, it is essential still to make use of chemical remedies from time to time in order to protect one’s plants and improve one’s harvests. As I said, these remedies are becoming more and more expensive and therefore it is important for legislation to protect the farmer from exploitation and to ensure that he gets what he needs. He must have the right remedy for the specific problem; he must not use too much of it, nor must he use too little, because one is as bad as the other.

The Bill contains a number of clauses which are actually of very great importance. The first one which has not yet been mentioned, deals with the question of advertising, namely the definition of an advertisement in order to eliminate misrepresentations. I think that this is a very important clause.

Furthermore there is the registration of products by a registrar who will work in very close co-operation with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. As I understand the legislation, he will most probably be an official of the department. As such, he will have very close contact with the department. He will also have the right to undertake inquiries and investigations in order to determine the effectiveness of such remedies.

I am also pleased about clause 6 which will now make it possible for a registrar to provide reasons when he turns down a factory. The advantage which I see in this, is that it will enable the factory to rectify the fault and it will also enable the manufacturer to appeal against the decision of the registrar much more successfully and so put its affairs in order with far less delay.

Then there is the provision in terms of which control over the sale of a product is introduced. For example, there were manufacturers who sold one remedy under six or eight names. This resulted in a great deal of confusion. This will also be eliminated by this legislation. The manufacturer will also have to guarantee that his product complies with the characteristics which he claims for it.

Mr. Speaker, in order to comply with your guidance, I just want to say that the other points have already been discussed. We welcome the legislation because it effects the necessary adaptations which we need in this modem age in order to keep our farmers informed and enable them to use the remedies in the correct way.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Bill before the House but there are certain matters we should like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister and which we hope he will reply to in his reply to the Second Reading debate. We are particularly pleased that the hon. member for Malmesbury has raised the question of the public interest because it is one of the matters which we wish to raise. We should like to draw attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the fact that in terms of the provisions of clauses 3(2) and 4(a) the registrar has the power to withdraw the registration of a product if he deems this to be in the “public interest”. Nowhere in the principal Act nor this Bill is a norm set for “public interest”. I submit that the hon. the Deputy Minister should give serious consideration to inserting such a norm which would cover such matters as safety, quality and efficacy but which would not necessarily encompass such factors as economics or price. The old Medicines and Related Drugs Control Act, No. 101 of 1965, had such a provision in Section 1(3), and I believe that a similar provision should be inserted into this Bill. That provision in the Medicines and Related Drugs Control Act reads as follows—

I submit that we are dealing here with poisonous substances that can affect the health of man, animals and plants, and I believe that there should be a similar norm laid down in legislation of this nature so that the registrar would be able to judge clearly what “public interest” is.

We should also like the hon. the Minister to give us some assurances in connection with the proposed new section 4(d) which empowers the registrar to withdraw a registration certificate if a person managing a business does not have sufficient knowledge of the relevant provisions of the Act or of the practices to be followed in the operation of such an undertaking. In the absence of a clear understanding of what “public interest” is, can the hon. the Deputy Minister give us some sort of objective standard in accordance with which the registrar will act in such a case? We regard it as important that the hon. the Deputy Minister should place this on record because one can have a case where a new manager, who is an excellent businessman but has not yet had enough time to acquaint himself fully with the Act, finds himself under investigation by the registrar, and the company concerned could then lose its registration. Similarly one can have an excellent manager who is fully acquainted with the Act but who is away on business when something goes wrong in the plant, something which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. A labelling machine may smudge labels, for example. This could lead to the suspension of registration in terms of this clause. In his reply I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to clarify the situation.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised the question of registration which relates particularly to the proposed new section 4A(2)(b) dealing with the lapsing of registration. The proposed section provides that registration shall lapse if the establishment where a product is manufactured is no longer used for such manufacture. I understand, however, that many registration holders arrange for the manufacture of their registered products under contract to other manufacturers, and provision should be made here for a change of manufacturer without the lapsing of registration. In terms of the provision, as it stands, a new registration would be required with the resultant extra costs, extra red tape and, of course, the loss of valuable time and production. The provisions of the Medicines and Related Drugs Control Act, which I have already mentioned, provide for the registration of a medicine to remain in force under such conditions, subject to the registrar satisfying himself that the new manufacturer is suitable, and I believe we could make similar provisions here. Here, too, I should like to suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister should give this his serious consideration, not necessarily in the Committee Stage but before he goes to the Other Place, so that this matter can be cleared up.

The hon. member for Durban North dealt with clause 14 but he dealt with different problems in clause 14 to the ones I wish to deal with. I should particularly like to deal with that part which amends section 15(5) of the principal Act. The problem here is that of samples being taken. We are not particularly happy with the wording of the proposed subsection which gives an owner the right only to claim from the registrar the marketvalue of such sample. In many instances the pack, the unit or container from which the sample is taken loses its market-value because it no longer complies with the weight and volume specifications indicated on the label. Therefore we believe that adequate provision should be made for compensating the owner in such cases for his pack that is now valueless and not just for the sample itself, which is removed therefrom.

*We support the Second Reading of the Bill and we shall await the hon. the Minister’s reply to our questions with interest.

Mr. Speaker, I think the dangers which the hon. member for Albany recognizes in this Bill are to a large extent eliminated by the provisions of clauses 13 and 14 and, together with this, the provisions of clauses 4 and 5 which give the department a particularly wide range of powers. As far as agriculture is concerned, I think it is a long time since the introduction of a Bill aimed at improving the principal Act has been as timely as this. We in South Africa have been gradually moving away from mechanical control in the past 10 years, particularly in relation to the use of chemical substances for the control of weeds. I predict that during the next decade, there will be a dramatic switch-over to this chemical control of weeds. I think this will happen for two reasons. The first is the unavailabilitity of efficient manual labour—in other words, mechanical control is becoming more difficult to apply. On the other hand, there is the regular increases in fuel prices during the past few months. When one considers the use of fuel in agriculture and one accepts that fuel is used to a large extent in the control of weeds during crop production in the summer rainfall areas, then one realizes that this is also an area which lends itself to fuel saving. In the year 1975-’76, a total of R150 million worth of fuel was consumed by the agricultural sector. Just over two-thirds of this amount was spent on diesel fuel; approximately one-fifth, or R30 million on petrol; and the rest on lubricants. When one takes into account that the petrol price was recently increased by 4 cents per litre, this constitutes an additional burden for the farmer of R5,2 million per year. As far as diesel is concerned, there was an increase of 1,3 cent per litre, which will mean approximately R11 million per year for the farmer.

Consequently, I want to predict that not only will more farmers use chemical weedkillers to a greater extent, but also that there will be new consumers of these substances. We therefore welcome the fact that this Bill is giving potency to this aspect so that those who do not yet have the basic knowledge at their disposal may make use of these means. It also affords the necessary protection. It is precisely because this field is so wide that the danger is so much greater. Weed-killers are selective plant killers, and their correct application is absolutely essential for maximum weed control and, at the same time, for the effective use of the crops to which they are applied.

Before weed-killers are used, certain basic knowledge is needed. One must have knowledge of the type of weed, the weed-killer, the, plant in question, the type of soil, the weather conditions, the time of application, the equipment, etc. Consequently, we appreciate the fact that this Bill provides that the manufacturers of these products have to provide a clear and detailed description of the use of these substances.

I think that eyebrows may be raised a little when looking at clause 3, which provides for the registration of fertilizers, but which does not specifically state the registration fee. I think the time has arrived for such sums to be adjusted from time to time by way of regulation. Until 1961, it cost £5 or R10 to have a substance registered. After that, it was raised to R20. When one takes a look at the general nature of the subject of registration, one finds that in the case of fertilizers, a registration fee of R10 had to be paid once every four years. Perhaps we in South Africa ought to start thinking about going further in this field. Perhaps we ought to give some consideration to collecting a substantial or large amount at first registration—make it R500 or even R1 000—and making reregistration a mere formality as long as the manufacturer of that product complies strictly with the demands made on that product and ensures the consistent efficaciousness of the product. Although one is grateful for the control which the department has exercised in this field over the past few years, one also wants to express one’s thanks to the manufacturers who are still conducting research in this field. One phenomenon which has come under close scrutiny during the past few weeks, is the problem of downy mildew here in the winter-rainfall region. At this stage it is as yet, only possible to take preventative measures; there are no curative remedies available. Because we are dealing with a perishable product, two types of weed-killer must be used: Firstly, a substance containing copper and after that, a chemical substance. Unfortunately, the situation this year is such that the farmer has to choose between possible fermentation problems if they have continued the use of substances containing copper for too long and, on the other hand, crop losses.

I therefore think that it is a good thing for us, when discussing this Bill, to appeal to the manufacturers of these chemical weed-killers to lend their full support to the cause of manufacturing and developing substances which will solve the problem of downy mildew here in the winter-rainfall region.

Mr. Speaker, I have always maintained that the best fertilizer for our soil is the farmer’s footsteps, i.e. personal supervision. He can use as much fertilizer and stock remedies as he likes, but unless he personally supervises it, he will find that his overhead expenses exceed his income. We are today discussing commodities which are costing the industry millions of rand. I have always said that it is not the money which we make that brings us wealth and security, but the money we save. Under discussion now is the registration of fertilizers, farm feeds and agricultural remedies, which covers vegetable farming, insecticides and stock remedies. We know too that insects, parasites and fungi all build up a resistance to the remedies which today are costing us a great deal of money. Most modem remedies can be purchased in farmers’ co-operative societies and in veterinary supply stores. There is one matter which does cause me concern and that is that certain manufacturers appear to hold a monopoly, which is something I believe must be guarded against. Not all the remedies exhibited on the shelves are good remedies. Some of the manufacturers seem to be selling far more than others. I have always wondered why. It is not because of the quality. Certain manufacturers—and I know some well—who manufacture stock remedies, have not been successful in having had them registered. I understand it costs thousands upon thousands of rand to do research—I am talking about private manufacturers—in order to convince the authorities, the powers that be, that their remedies answer the purpose. I know that some of their remedies are very effective indeed. I know of one remedy which, although I use it myself, is not registered. I can only obtain it by prescription through my veterinary surgeon. I have found no better remedy, and I have recommended it to many other agriculturalists too, viz. a stock lick which contains a good percentage of phenothyasine. This is an excellent remedy against internal parasites, but it is not registered. The firm has certainly tried its best to have it registered, but because the manufacturer cannot prove beyond doubt that the remedy is effective—maintaining it costs him thousands of rand to do research—he has not been able to register it for the market.

There is another way, of course, of combating parasites when it comes to stock-farming, and this is systematic rotational grazing. One can clean one’s unit very effectively by systematic rotational grazing—in other words, by resting paddocks for more, but not less, than six months, and by dosing with remedies when one moves stock from one paddock to another. This can be done very effectively, but it requires the personal supervision of the farmer. This method can cut costs to a great extent. There are vegetable farmers who complain that because of certain insecticides being taken off the market, they often sell inferior produce. This is true. I have seen it on the market in East London. However, there seems to be little we can do about it. As the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South rightly said, our country seems to be very susceptible to parasites, fungi, etc.

I believe that clause 6 is a good clause. It is advisable that the department should be able to furnish reasons for either not granting the registration, or for taking certain products off the market. The appeal court—provided for in clause 7—is, I believe, a good move in the right direction. I also believe, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South pointed out, that the chairman should not only be a man of legal knowledge, but someone who knows more about the subject and about the industry.

Mr. Speaker, this is all I want to say. I am not a man of many words. I am reminded of words once used by Mr. Stanley Baldwin in the House of Commons in the 1930s, when he said—

Mr. Speaker, during his speech at Second Reading, the hon. member for Albany, who does not seem to be here at the moment, referred to clause 3 and made specific mention of the term “public interest”. I want, for the purposes of the record, to indicate that this particular aspect raised by the hon. member for Albany was one that has engaged the attention of the official Opposition as well. The hon. member for Albany suggested that “public interest” should be defined, or its purpose described, and he referred specifically to the Medicines and Related Controlled Substances Act, No. 101 of 1965. There is another example which he could have quoted, and that is a Bill which is on the Order Paper, but not yet before the House. That is the Health Bill. However, when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South wished to frame an amendment which would have in effect explained or defined “public interest” in the context of this particular clause, he was advised by the Clerks that it could not be dealt with, because that particular wording was not under review in this particular clause. As a matter of fact, the same wording existed in the draft Bill of 1976.

I have a problem which I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to resolve for me. I take the opportunity of raising it at Second Reading to give him the opportunity, if he should wish, to reply in the Second Reading or Committee Stage. Basically my problem revolves round the question of the definitions and the reference which is made in the definition of “agricultural remedy” to, firstly, the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act. As far as that is concerned I think I understand the position and I do not believe there is any difficulty. However, later on in the definition reference is made to the Hazardous Substances Act, 1973. I may be wrong in this and trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister will correct me, but my impression is that the regulations which really provide the administrative power of the Hazardous Substances Act of 1973—that is almost four years ago—have not yet been promulgated in their final form. I am aware of Gazette Notice No. 1142 of 13 June 1975 in which draft regulations were published for comment, but, as far as I know, they have not been finalized. In the draft regulations reference is made, in the schedule of the regulations relating to Group I hazardous substances, to the fact that an exception is made in regard to those substances under the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act. I have no problem there, but it also says that there will be exceptions in regard to any product containing antimony potassium tartrate, etc., which is registered with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services under the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act, 1947. That is in category A. In category B we find that reference is made to any product also registered with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services under the Act that we are now seeking to amend. In this category details are given of substances which produce death under certain circumstances, but I do not wish to go into that. My problem is that when one comes to the question of further definitions later on, the term “licence” is defined as follows—

As I read it there may be exceptions under category A which would preclude the person from having a licence, but under category B of Group I substances in the draft regulations it would appear that a licence which would have to be applied for through the Department of Health would be required.

I want to come to the question of the definition of “establishment” in the Bill. An “establishment” is referred to as a place where goods are “manufactured … for the purposes of sale”. My query to the hon. the Deputy Minister is if, in terms of the definition of “establishment”, it would be necessary for a person who sells remedies registered under this Act to have a licence in terms of the Hazardous Substances Act regulations.

Mr. Speaker, we introduced this amendment primarily to see whether or not we could afford more protection to agriculture. After all, this is the aim of the Act as it stands today.

There are some doubts on less important aspects and I just want to refer briefly to the misgivings of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South about the chairman of the appeal board. If I understood him correctly, he suggested—in response to my invitation to make good suggestions—that we ought to appoint an ex-judge as chairman of the appeal board. I do not think we would differ over that, if only it were practical. Consequently I have my doubts as to whether we shall be able to include it in the Act, because circumstances could arise under which we should find it very difficult to carry this out in practice. He had his doubts about the registration of the remedy and the establishment as defined in clause 3. The problems he envisages could possibly arise under certain circumstances, but I just want to point out that the amendments which we are introducing do not only concern the large factories. To tell the truth, we have no difficulties with the large factories. Their good names and trade marks alone are a guarantee, even for this purpose. We are definitely experiencing no major problems in that respect. We do have problems, though—just as one of the hon. members said—with people who come along with remedies they have manufactured in their backyards. By way of explanation, I want to quote an example. A man who makes teat salve—the pharmacists in our midst will be able to understand this—has 11 female workers in his employ. All the work is done by hand. Now, it might come to light, by medically examining the workers, that ten of the eleven were suffering from tuberculosis. This is a state of affairs which we definitely cannot tolerate. It is precisely because of this that officials must know, firstly, the location of the establishment that manufacturers that remedy and, secondly, what the remedy is. This is most essential and for that reason, registration must take place.

We agree on that. All we are asking, is that there should be two registrations instead of one.

I am convinced that there are two. We are not interested in registering a factory, because that, after all, falls under different legislation. All we want to know, is where that remedy is manufactured. [Interjections.]

Order!

I also want to thank the hon. member for Malmesbury for his fine survey. I agree with him—and personally, I should perhaps like to delve more deeply into this, but not on this occasion—that control will have to be exercised over this type of equipment where such equipment is necessary for the administering of remedies in the case of contractors. I think that as well as being something which we can reflect upon at a later stage, this is something which it will be to our benefit to consider. I also want to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Durban North for his support. I am very disappointed, however, that he has once again advanced this argument of autocratic powers and infringement of human rights. When he came to the House, I really hoped that things would begin to look up for the PRP. I was very sympathetic towards the hon. member for Houghton who, in all the years she was here alone, really showed that she was out of her depth on every occasion when she made a remark about agriculture. In 1974 she came to the House with a new little team. Not one of them—excepting the hon. member for Orange Grove, and the best qualification he had as a farmer was the “Orange” in the name of his constituency— had any experience of farming. They then got the Progrefs in addition, but still there was no one who could speak with authority on agriculture. When the hon. member for Durban North made his appearance in the House, I honestly took it that we did in fact have someone in the House who would be able to speak sensibly on agriculture, but now that hon. member, too, is climbing on the bandwagon and kicking up a fuss about human rights with regard to legislation such as this.

I honestly think that we farmers ought to take cognizance of this. Why should one appoint a policeman, give him an order and when the day arrives for him to execute that order, tell him that he does not have the power to execute it. Why appoint him in the first place? I do not want to become involved in a philosophical discussion with other hon. members, but let us be practical in regard to the provision of food and the protection of agriculture. In this regard, why are we arguing as if we want to protect the dishonest man, because this legislation and the penalties it involves are certainly aimed at the dishonest man, the man who sits on the fence and who now and then falls off on the wrong side. In that regard, I am thinking of the hon. member for Humansdorp, whom I want to thank for the work he had already done on the legislation before he came here. The hon. members for Albany, Malmesbury and Pietermaritzburg North made a point here about public interests. I do not know whether it is completely in order for us to debate this at the moment, because this is not an amendment; it already appears in the principal Act. Whereas those hon. members referred to the fact that we have to have standards, I want to point out that the standards are, after all, determined by the manufacturer who applies for registration of a remedy. He effects this registration on the basis of thorough tests which he has carried out and research which he has done in that regard, which is then submitted, on the understanding that he demands that the remedy be utilised for a specific purpose. When all is said and done, this is the standard, and if any dangerous substances, poisons, for example are found in the remedy, it will naturally not be approved. In my opinion, the standard is really determined by the application which is submitted, and we want to ensure that the farmer will be protected if the standard is departed from.

The withdrawal of registration, which is being advocated here, applies when accidental mistakes occur, if the manager was not present, for example. As a farmer, I really do not want to be the victim of a manufacturer’s negligence, whether deliberate or accidental. I have the greatest sympathy for the manufacturer, but when I buy his remedy, I want value for my money.

As far as the taking of samples is concerned, I am not entirely sure that compensation should be paid for this. I am not quite sure about the matter, but I do know that certain products are, in fact, compensated for, but whether this is the case at all times, I do not know. Since it is considered that the taking of samples does great harm to the dealers or manufacturers, the hon. member need not be too modest for the simple reason that even when the product has to be packed in bulk in sealed containers, we still have to be sure of what is inside those containers. The hon. members for Bethlehem referred to an aspect which is perhaps worthy of the House’s attention. Registration takes place every fourth year. We have four types of remedy which are controlled and every year one of the remedies is registered for four years. The speech of the hon. member for East London North was relevant to the vote of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, particularly in relation to the monopoly to which he referred. We are indeed fully aware of the economy measures in respect of the rotation system of grazing. This does not only apply to rotation in itself, of course. This is the correct practice when other remedies are applied as well.

I think I have now replied to the speeches of all the hon. members who participated in the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Land Survey Act, 1927, which came into operation on 1 January 1929, regulates matters relating to the survey of land. In the almost 50 years the Act has been in operation, it has been necessary to effect adjustments from time to time, as circumstances and requirements changed. I should like to explain the amendments embodied in this Bill to you briefly.

The principal Act makes provision for the establishment of a survey regulations board which may make regulations on a variety of matters relating to land surveys. One of the matters over which the board exercises control by regulation is the fees to which a land surveyor is entitled for his services. The relevant provision in the principal Act is being amended in clause I of this Bill to make it clear that the records required before a survey can be undertaken are also subject to a tariff. These records apply to statutory applications and agreements laid down as requirements before a diagram or a general plan may be approved. This amendment will eliminate the uncertainty which existed in regard to the matter.

In section 16 of the principal Act a procedure is prescribed which has to be adopted when an agreement is entered into between contiguous owners concerning the acceptance of a beacon or boundary in which the parties concerned have an interest. This procedure is for example used in those cases where an existing property has not been surveyed or where the replacement of an existing and satisfactory boundary such as an old road or railway line with a demarcated boundary is being contemplated. Up to now it has been required that only the owners of the properties in question need sign such an agreement. However, the holders of mineral rights and other essential rights have occasionally objected that inadequate consideration is given to their interests when such an agreement is entered into. The amendment embodied in clause 5 now seeks to take such rights into consideration as well. The extension of the definition of “owner” in clause 11 also seeks to recognize the rights of a holder of mineral rights.

†The object of clause 7 is to prescribe the procedure for the removal of uncertainty or ambiguity in the description of a river boundary. In South Africa there are many farms which are bounded on one or more sides by a river or some stream. Unfortunately, in numerous cases, no reference is made in the original grant or diagram as to whether a particular bank or the middle of the river or stream was meant to be the boundary. This ambiguity gives rise to many problems. It is usually when a subdivision of such a farm is contemplated that the surveyor is confronted with the problem of having to indicate the boundary in its true position. Hon. members will realize that many of these rivers and streams are merely dry watercourses for a great part of the year. It is also a fact that the survey methods and apparatus used a hundred or more years ago were not nearly as accurate as those in use today. The need for legislation to regulate this matter has become apparent, and I am sure that the provision which has now been made will be welcomed.

*Hon. members will also note that the fines which may be imposed upon conviction of an offence in terms of the Land Survey Act have been increased. This will, to a greater extent, bring them into line with present-day norms. Various other amendments are being proposed which are aimed primarily at the better regulation of administrative procedures or to meet deficiencies which have emerged.

In conclusion I should like to mention that the proposed amendments were published for information in the form of a draft Bill in the Gazette early last year and that the surveyors’ profession was consulted through the agency of the Central Land Surveyors’ Council.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has quite clearly indicated that he did publish this Bill for general information last year. The information we have been able to glean on this side of the House is that the persons most concerned with this matter, most particularly the S.A. Institute of Land Surveyors, have gone through the Bill very carefully and welcome the provisions which the hon. the Deputy Minister has introduced here this afternoon. I am told that many of the provisions are, in fact, already in operation and that these amendments have come as the result of representations made by the institute to bring the Act into line with what has become the practice over the years. We consequently welcome this Bill and believe it to be a step in the right direction. In fact, we hope that this sort of thing will happen more often, i.e. that we will have legislation legalizing what has become the practice in the country by the tried and trusted method of trial and error. I do not believe that there are any provisions that really require debate by hon. members of this House. However, I must add that we do welcome the provision to protect the rights of owners of real rights. In the past this has been one aspect that has been rather neglected, and there has been litigation as the result of the chopping up of land. This measure is now going to obviate that. Having said those few words, let me conclude by saying that we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members in these benches will support the Second Reading of this Bill. When the legislation was published last year, I submitted it to a land surveyor whom I know well, for his perusal. According to the information given to me then—apparently, no amendments have been introduced since then—all the members of this profession felt that this legislation was vital for better land survey legislation. The people most intimately affected by this are, of course, the plot owners and the farmers of South Africa. I believe they will welcome this Bill, and for that reason we support it.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there has been consultation with the surveying profession, and in view of the fact that there seem to be no difficulties in the Bill, we on these benches give it our support.

Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to note that the hon. members on that side of the House support this bill. It is true that the four land surveyors’ institutes and the Central Council of Land Surveyors requested this legislation, and for that reason, it is a good thing that the Government has introduced this legislation today. It speaks volumes for the integrity and sincerity of the land surveyors’ profession that they themselves have asked that certain limits be placed on the fees which may be demanded from the public for the purposes of land surveying. These limitations are contained in clause I. This is indeed praiseworthy, but it also corresponds to our experience of the land surveyors’ profession. The importance of the land surveyor in our system of land tenure is often not appreciated. We often tend to think that the conveyancer who transfers the ownership is the important man, but in fact, it is not always so easy to ascertain the physical position of the beacons on the ground. Because this is so difficult, it is sometimes even necessary to formulate a beacon agreement, for which provision is also made in the legislation. A beacon agreement is entered into when one is unsure of the exact location of the beacon, due to the fact that the land surveying may have taken place in the nineteenth century, in 1890 or 1900. When one is not sure of the accuracy of those surveys, it is important that provision should also have been made for the beacon agreements which may be entered into.

There are also problems related to river boundaries. The boundaries formed by rivers fluctuate and consequently there can be legal proceedings concerning the ager limitatus, i.e. where a piece of ground had a specific surveyed size. In this regard, there are two appeal court rulings which are not always entirely compatible. One was in 1912,1 think, and the other in 1957. The problem lies in deciding whether the land was surveyed accurately. We do not know whether a piece of land was surveyed accurately before the Land Survey Act of 1927, came into effect. In order to deal with this practical problem which has now emerged because our land has developed and subdivision is taking place, it is essential that the Bill make provision for this.

Another aspect which I find interesting, concerns the fines which may be imposed when one obstructs a land surveyor in the execution of his duties, when one moves beacons, etc. The fact of the matter is that the land surveying process has become such an expensive one today that if beacons are moved, it is extremely expensive to replace them. For that reason, I think that it is only right that provision is being made in this Bill for increased fines which may be imposed.

Under the circumstances, I should like to support this Bill in its entirety. I believe that it will make a major contribution to the security of justice as regards land ownership in this country.

Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the easiest Second Reading debates to which I have ever had to reply. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the members of the Opposition for their support and I should like to thank the hon. member for Pretoria West, who is a qualified land surveyor, for his support both within and outside the House in getting this legislation piloted through.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although the benefits allocated to workmen as a result of accidents arising from their employment, or to their dependants in the case of fatal accidents, were improved very recently, in 1974, the financial position of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund once again makes it possible to improve certain benefits. At the same time it has now become possible to proceed to the allocation of pensions, instead of lump sums, to Black workmen who sustain serious permanent disablement, or to their dependants if they die as a result of accidents.

I tabled an explanatory memorandum on the Bill last year, but I should now like to elucidate the proposed statutory amendments further.

The proposed amendments may be divided into four categories, viz.—

1. (1) Amendments which will improve the benefits payable in terms of the Act and will raise the wage limit for inclusion of a workman under the Act;
2. (2) Amendments which will entail that the provisions of the Act will, as far as possible, be the same in respect of all population groups;
3. (3) Amendments which will facilitate the administration of the Act and in that way reduce administration costs; and finally,
4. (4) Consequential amendments.

For the sake of clarity I shall deal with each of the four groups separately and I begin with the first one to which I referred, and which relate to clauses 1, 5(a) and (b), 6 and 7(a), (b), (c) and (d).

Clause 1 envisages a wider application of compulsory Workmen’s Compensation Insurance. Employees whose annual earnings exceed R7 260 are at present not entitled to benefits under the Act, unless the employer has voluntarily made special arrangements with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to cover such workers. Since the wage limit was raised in 1974 from R5 460 per annum to R7 260 per annum, the increased annual earnings of many employees as a result of wage increases and remuneration for regular overtime, have placed them beyond the ambit of the Act and consequently left them without insurance against injury on duty. More than 3 000 of the bigger employers entered into special arrangements with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to insure their workmen regardless of earnings. Others again arranged with private insurance companies for accident cover, but unfortunately the vast majority of employers took no action in this regard, and consequently many claims from workmen earning more than R7 260 per annum have to be rejected.

A raising of the wage limit from R7 260 to R9 600 per annum, as is being proposed, is considered to be justified in view of the present wage structures.

The ideal position would be to do away with the limit and in that way insure workmen under the Act regardless of the extent of their earnings. Objections were however received on the part of some employers’ organizations on the grounds that there are employers who have arranged group insurance schemes with private insurance companies to insure highly paid employees, even when they are not on duty. Such schemes cannot always be terminated on short notice, and compulsory insurance of the highly paid workmen under the Act would then entail double insurance and place an excessively heavy financial burden on the shoulders of the employers concerned. However, I hope that employers will, on a subsequent occasion, see their way clear to supporting the abolition of the wage limit, or at least to lending their support to a wage limit which would make repudiation of claims as a result of earnings which are too high a rare exception.

Clauses 5(a) and 5(b) provide that periodical payments, payable in terms of section 38 in respect of a workman’s temporary total disablement, shall be calculated at 75% of the first R400 instead of the first R247 of his monthly earnings. In terms of this the maximum monthly periodical payments will increase from R185,25 to R300. The increase is necessary owing to the general wage increases during the past few years, and owing to the upward tendency which is still continuing.

Clause 6 provides that compensation in terms of section 39, in respect of permanent disablement, shall in the same way as periodical payments owing to wage increases be based on the first R400 instead of on the first R247 of a workman’s monthly earnings. This will entail a considerable increase in the lump sum payable in the case of permanent disablement of 30% and less, and in the pensions payable to a workman for permanent disablement above 30%. The maximum lump sum will increase from R2 550 to R4 080 and the maximum monthly pension from R185,25 to R300. I think hon. members will concede that this is a substantial improvement.

An improvement in workmen’s pensions, payable in terms of section 39 of the Act, also entails an improvement in the pensions of dependants, for section 40, in terms of which the pensions of dependants are allocated, provides that where a workman dies and leaves a dependant who is entitled to a pension as a result of his death, for example a widow, a child or another dependant who is entirely dependent on him, the pension of such a dependant is calculated at a fixed percentage of the pension which the workman would have received for 100% permanent disablement and which, as proposed, has to be increased from R185,25 to R300 per month.

The percentage to which a widow is entitled is 40%, and the percentage of her children under the age of 18 years is 20%. The maximum monthly pension of a widow will therefore increase from R74,10, i.e. 40% of R185,25, to R120, i.e. 40% of R300, and that of a child from R37,05, i.e. 20% of R185,25 to R60, i.e. 20% of R300. This is a considerable number of figures which are therefore being changed here, but there is nevertheless a logic in this. The total monthly pension of a widow and her children under the age of 18 years may not, however, exceed that of a workman’s maximum monthly pension for a 100% permanent disablement, which is now R247 per month, and which will, after the amendment, be R300 per month. This means that a widow with three or more children who is now, in the same way as a workman, receiving a total maximum monthly pension of R247, will receive R300 after the amendment, of which 40% is in respect of the widow, and 60% in respect of the children.

If the workman does not leave as a dependant a widow or an invalid widower, the pension of the children may, in terms of section 40(1)(c)(iii) be increased by such part of the pension as the widow or invalid widower would have received. If the pension payments of the children, including such an increase, were to amount to less than the workman’s earnings for two years, or R1 500, whichever amount is the less, the payments may in terms of section 40(1)(c)(iv) be increased to these limits provided the total does not exceed the pension payments which the workman would receive for 100% permanent disablement. An increase of the amount from R1 500 to R2 500, to adjust to general wage increases, is being proposed in clause 7(a) and will mean in effect that if there are only dependent children and the workman earned R120 per month—i.e. R2 880 in two years—and the children’s pensions, calculated in the prescribed manner, amount to a total of R1 152, it will be possible to increase the amount to R2 500, instead of to R1 500, as is the case at present. The last adjustment of the amount, when it was determined at R1 500, occurred in 1956.

Clause 7(b) envisages an increase in the maximum lump sum which may be paid in terms of section 40(1 )(e) of the Act to persons partly dependent upon the workman, if there is no widow or invalid widower or children, or to other people who were entirely dependent on the deceased. At present the maximum payment is a lump sum which does not exceed a sum which bears the same proportion to two years’ earnings, or R1 500, whichever amount is the less, as the degree of dependency bears to a total dependency. An increase in the aforementioned amount to R2 500 is being proposed in view of wage increases in recent years. The last adjustment of the figure was made in 1956.

The object of clause 7(c) is to ensure that all population groups shall receive allowances not exceeding R250 for burial expenses if the workman died as a result of an accident. This has become necessary owing to the considerable increase in such expenses since they were last revised in 1967 and were increased to R150 for Whites, Asiatics and Coloureds, and to R75 for Bantu. The burial expenses if the workman is a Bantu are in general less than in the case of the other population groups, but have nevertheless increased. It is important to emphasize that the maximum allowance is not necessarily payable in all cases. Only the reasonable burial expenses incurred are paid.

Clause 7(d) seeks to ensure that the pension of a widow or an invalid widower shall not cease if he or she marries or remarries. In the past the existing provision to the effect that it ceases if the widow or invalid widower marries or remarries gave rise to people living together out of wedlock. In addition it sometimes happens that two marriages fail and the widow or invalid widower and family then find themselves in financial embarrassment if the pension is no longer there. The statistics of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner indicate that while a considerable number of White widows remarry every year, very few remarriages occur among other population groups. It is therefore reasonable to expect that, if pensions, as is being proposed in this Bill, are also allocated to Bantu, cessation of pensions in the case of remarriage, would to a large extent amount to discrimination against White widows, who usually prefer to forfeit their pension rather than to cohabit out of wedlock. In the case of employees of the State the pensions of widows continue upon remarriage.

I come now to the second group of amendments to which I referred and which are intended to provide that all population groups be compensated on the same basis. What is involved here is principally the payment of pensions to Bantu, who, unlike the other population groups, may not qualify for pensions in the case of permanent disablement or fatal accidents, but only for lump sums. Clauses 2, 13, 14 and 15 are relevant here. Clause 2 is aimed at effecting a simple or uniform definition of the concept of “dependant” for all population groups.

If, in accordance with the general definition of “dependant” in section 4 of the Act, there is no widow, invalid widower, child, a parent, brother or sister wholly or partly dependent on the workmen for the necessaries of life, any other person who was wholly or partly dependent on the workman for the necessaries of life may qualify for compensation. In view of Bantu customs and the Bantu way of life it is, however, provided in section 86(3), which is applicable only to Bantu, that any other person who, in the opinion of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, was totally or partially dependent upon the workman, may qualify for compensation.

Although not frequently, it does happen from time to time in the case of the other population groups as well that a person other than the ordinary dependants is partly dependent on the workman, and since the object is to effect uniform treatment as far as possible for all population groups, it is being proposed that the general definition of “dependant” be suitably amended, as set out in clause 2, with this object in mind.

Clause 13 provides that section 84 of the Act be repealed. This will result in Bantu receiving periodical payments on the same basis as all the other population groups in terms of section 38 of the Act.

In terms of clause 14 section 85 of the Act is being deleted. This will entail that Bantu workmen with permanent disablement in excess of 30% will, in the same way as all other population groups, be entitled to pensions in terms of section 39 of the Act, instead of lump sums.

The amendment contained in clause 15 will result in the provisions of the Act with regard to Bantu dependants being brought into line with those applicable to the other population groups, who are, inter alia, entitled to pensions in terms of section 40, and to allow the discretional allocation of such pensions where more than one widow is involved in the case of a Bantu. Allowances for burial expenses will, as has already been explained, be payable to all the population groups on the same basis in terms of section 40(2).

I come now to the third group of amendments, those dealing primarily with the administration of the Act, and which relate to clauses 3(b), 8 and 10.

In terms of clause 3(b) a saving on administrative and legal expenses is being envisaged when the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner exercises his right in terms of section 8 of the Act to take judicial steps to recover the compensation he is required to pay if a third party is involved who, in terms of the provisions of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, is liable to the payment of damages.

As the position stands at present, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, whenever he decides to recover compensation from a third party’s insurer, has to adopt legal procedures which are expensive and which are largely a duplication of what has already been done by insurers and plaintiffs. If an agreement is entered into between the manager of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund and the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner on the basis as proposed in clause 3(b), a global sum will be payable annually, instead of a separate payment in respect of each case. This will simplify the recovery procedure and make a saving of expenses possible without prejudice to the parties concerned. The global sum will be based on statistics kept on compensation in cases of third party insurance.

Clause 8 seeks to extend the power which the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has in terms of section 49 in regard to the conversion of the whole of a workman’s pension.

In accordance with the present provisions the whole of a workman’s pension may be converted if the balance after conversion of the prescribed amount is less than R2 per month. The proposed amendment makes provision for conversion of the whole of such pension if the balance is less than R10 per month. According to regulation 17 the prescribed amount is R96 per annum, i.e. R8 per month.

In addition it is also being provided now that conversions may also be made on the same basis in the case of dependants.

The expenses involved in the payment of numerous relatively small pensions sometimes justify their conversion, particularly if the pensioner changes his address frequently, as in the case of Bantu to whom it will also be possible to allocate pensions now and in whose interests it would be for the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to make suitable arrangements if they were to move about a great deal. If the lump sum payable as a result of the conversion is a considerable one, it is the intention to control payment thereof in terms of section 46 by paying the amount into a post office savings bank account in the name of the beneficiary, making an endorsement in the savings bank book as to the maximum monthly amount which may be drawn at any post office, and then giving the savings bank book to the beneficiary. This system has the same advantages as the monthly payment of the pension as such, and simultaneously offers a solution to the otherwise almost insurmountable problem of monthly payments to beneficiaries who have no permanent address.

Clause 10 seeks to extend the powers which the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner may confer in terms of section 63 on an employer who is individually liable, or on a mutual association, relating to the provisional settlement of workmen’s claims for compensation, so that these may also include provisional settlements in respect of lump sums allocated in terms of section 45 or 49 instead of pensions or portions of pensions.

Many Bantu mine-workers who are recruited abroad are insured in respect of accidents by the Rand Mutual Assurance Co. Ltd. in terms of section 95 of the Act. Since pensions will now be allocated to Bantu as well and it will be possible, for practical reasons, to convert the pensions of foreign pensioners, as well as the smaller pensions of other pensioners, to lump sums in terms of section 45 or 49, it is desirable that authorization be granted to exempted employers and mutual associations that are liable in terms of the Act for the payment of compensation, to make provisional settlements in regard to conversions as well. This will eliminate delays in the payment of the aforesaid lump sums, and facilitate administration.

I come now to the fourth and last group of amendments, i.e. the consequential amendments set out in clauses 3(a), 4, 5(c), 7(e), 9, 11 and 12.

Clause 3(a) relates to the right of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission to recover compensation. Compensation, for this purpose, includes funeral expenses as well, in terms of section 8 which, in the case of Bantu are payable in terms of section 86 but which, as a result of the substitution of this section, as proposed in clause 15, will be payable on the same basis as that of the other population groups.

Clause 4 envisages an amendment of section 31, which arises partly from clause 8 of the Bill and which, as has already been explained, is aimed at extending the power to convert a workman’s pension into a lump sum and also to make the conversion of the pension of a dependant into a prescribed amount possible. If lump sum payments of this kind which will eliminate payment of a series of relatively small pensions but which in many cases, depending mainly on the age of the pensioner, may nevertheless amount to thousands of rand, are not taken into consideration with the allocation of review of compensation in respect of a dependant, it may entail allocations being made under circumstances which amount to repeated compensation in respect of the same accident.

If an itinerant workman’s monthly pension of R15, for example, is converted and produces a lump sum of R2 400, and he were to die a few days later as a result of the accident, and the amount was not taken into account in the allocation then made in respect of a dependant, such a dependant, to the detriment of the risk-bearer in question, will not only receive the ordinary compensation for which the Act makes provision but also the entire R2 400, or a very large portion thereof. In the same way, too, if the entire pension of R200 of a foreign pensioner is converted and produces a lump sum of R31 600, his dependent widow, if he were to die as a result of the accident, may under certain circumstances receive not only the benefits to which she is normally entitled, but also a very large portion at least of the lump sum of R31 600 which has already been allocated to the workman in respect of the accident.

As far as clause 5(c) is concerned, the amendment is essential because section 84, as proposed in clause 13, is now being deleted and periodical payments in respect of all population groups will be made on the same basis in accordance with section 38 of the Act.

Clause 7(e) relates to section 40(4)(c) of the Act, in which provision is made for the payment of lump sum to a widow or invalid widower who marries or remarries and whose pension payments then cease. In accordance with the amendments in clause 7(d), however, a pension will not lapse if such a person marries or remarries.

Clause 9 relates to the amendment to section 51(5) of the Act. In terms of section 51 of the Act the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner may impose a fine amounting to the compensation in respect of an accident which the employer fails to report. Such compensation, inter alia, includes, in accordance with section 51(5), other burial expenses mentioned in section 86(2). As hon. members will note, section 86 is now being substituted, and a consequential amendment is required.

As far as clauses 11 and 12 are concerned, the amendments are also of a consequential nature because section 86 of the principal Act is being substituted.

Clause 16 deals with the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. It is the intention that the Amendment Act should commence as soon as is expedient. Increased compensation will only be applicable to accidents which occur after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. Such a step is inevitable, since it would be impractical to increase assessments on employers with retrospective effect for the financing of increased compensation in respect of accidents which occurred prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. It is not only the Workmen’s Compensation Fund which is a risk bearer, but the State, certain major municipalities and two mutual associations as well, viz. the Rand Mutual Assurance Co. Ltd., which undertakes a large portion of the accident insurance in the mining industry, and the Federated Employers’ Mutual Assurance Co. Ltd., in the building industry. Their position must also be taken into consideration. As hon. members know, no contributions are made to the fund by employees and the revenue of the fund consists of assessments levied on employers in accordance with the accident rate in each industry.

If benefits are improved as proposed in this Bill, the annual expenditure of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund will increase by an estimated approximately R5½ million as a result of the improvements.

As far as Government departments, provincial administrations, the S.A. Railways and the Post Office are concerned, an estimate was made on the assumption that the same percentage increase would arise as in the case of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. It is estimated that the total additional expenditure for these bodies will amount to approximately R1½ million. The raising of the wage limit for inclusion as a workman does not of course affect Government departments since all public servants are already covered by the Act, regardless of their salaries.

As far as the revenue from the fund is concerned, an assessment will be levied on a maximum of R400, instead of R247, of a workman’s monthly wage. On this basis the Commissioner is of the opinion that the improved benefits which are being envisaged will result, not in an increase, but rather in a reduction of assessment tariffs.

These, then, are in broad outline the amendments which have been drawn up after consultation with the various risk-bearers and employers’ organizations.

Since the amendments are aimed primarily at effecting improved benefits for all the population groups, it is hoped that they will meet with the approval of this hon. House. As hon. members of this House will have been able to note, a great deal of goodwill is implicit in this Workmen’s Compensation Bill, and a great deal of hard work, over a long period of time, has been done in respect of this Bill. I think it is a major step forward and a step which is welcomed by all population groups and all organizations in the country. The introduction of this Bill has had a long preamble, and I would be neglecting my duty if I did not on this occasion express my cordial thanks to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and his staff, who made the introduction of this Bill today possible.

Mr. Speaker, it falls to my lot to put the views of this party, the official Opposition, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister that although we are not wildly enthusiastic about this Bill, we do welcome many of the improvements it contains, particularly what many of us consider to be the most important aspects, viz. the increased benefits and the removal of racial discrimination. We all realize how important the Workmen’s Compensation Act is in industrial legislation. It is one of the most important aspects of industrial legislation. We only wish it were possible to manage without the Workmen’s Compensation Act because if we could, it would mean that industry was accident-free, but that is impossible and we therefore try to make this Act as workable and efficient as we can. We therefore welcome the steps that have been taken by the hon. the Minister and his department in remedying those aspects which are not what they should be. We know there are still many shortcomings in this Act. There have been many shortcomings relating to benefits, and here I am thinking in particular of delays in settling accounts. I know that is a very sore point as far as the medical fraternity is concerned. Then there has also been the question of the unnecessary discrimination between the races. We are pleased to see, however, that many of these aspects have been rectified and that steps have been taken to deal with these complaints. The hon. the Minister has given a very comprehensive explanation of this legislation, and for that we thank him. There is, in actual fact, not very much more one can say about this, but I would like to touch upon the high points, i.e. those aspects which I feel are most important. The increase in the weighted ceiling is a most realistic one, far more realistic now than it previously was, since today R600 per month is not an uncommon wage in industry. In 1974, however, only three years ago, the ceiling was increased from R5 460 p.a. to R7 260 p.a., and now we are pushing it up to R9 600 p.a. I wonder what the position will be in a couple of years’ time?

We also welcome the increases in benefits that are going to be paid. In 1974 the maximum figure allowed on total earnings was three-quarters of R247. This has now gone up to three-quarters of R400, an increase from a maximum pension of R185 per month to a maximum of R300 per month, which we feel is a much more realistic figure today. I note, though, that these payments are unfortunately not retrospective, and I wonder what the position is of those who have been pensioned off because of injuries received at work. What relief do they get? It is not possible for them to obtain any other income, and with the rising cost of living, what is the position of these unfortunate people?

We also note that in terms of the existing Act the Bantu only receive a lump sum as compensation. That was far from satisfactory, and we are very pleased to see that the Bantu are now also eligible for monthly pension payments if the disability is more than 30%. We welcome the removal of what has hitherto been a restriction.

Clause 15 also removes another form of discrimination, and here I am referring to funeral benefits. These are now to be paid out for Bantu who die as a result of illness or accident at their place of work. It would appear that death is indeed the great leveller. Long delays encountered in cases involving workmen’s compensation claims will, we hope, now be removed in cases involving the MV A Fund, as provided for in clause 3(a) and (b). It is now possible, as the hon. the Minister explained, for the MVA companies to make a lump sum payment to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in advance to cover estimated claims. I wonder if this is welcomed by our legal fraternity?

The tendency of many workmen to commute their small pensions was also an alarming one. They would commute their pensions into lump sums which were quickly spent, and then they would be destitute because they had no money. We find that this has now been limited by provisions in clause 8, raising the ceiling. It may cost the Fund more in the long run, but it will cope with a very real social problem.

We also welcome the increased benefits, particularly those mentioned in clause 7. The hon. the Minister pointed out that it is now obligatory for the Commissioner to pay a widow or an invalid widower a lump sum equivalent to 30 months’ pension if he or she should remarry. As the hon. the Minister pointed out, this would of course affect the White widow or White invalid widower more than anyone else. It does seem rather unfair, because, as he said, many of these marriages end up on the rocks and then these people have no income at all. I did not quite catch what the hon. the Minister said. Did he say wherein the solution lies? We wonder for whose benefit this decision was really taken. Will it, like some of our pension legislation, force people to live in sin and not to get married? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will go into this more fully.

You were not listening.

Perhaps I was not listening. In any case, I do not think I understood it.

†Clause 16 lays down that many of these increased benefits will not apply in respect of accidents that have happened before this Bill becomes law. We wonder whether this is such a wise decision. Why cannot this apply to claims that have not yet been met at the time this Bill becomes law? We feel that that would be much fairer. We are not expecting it to be made retrospective to other claims which have already been settled, but unsettled claims should perhaps be dealt with under the new formula.

In closing, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister if he could not perhaps look into the problem people experience with getting the details of their rights and obligations in terms of this legislation, details which are usually made available in an explanatory booklet. I understand that people are finding it very difficult to get hold of this booklet. It appears that the department is economizing on the distribution of this booklet. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister, particularly now that there are these revisions and amendments, could not see to it that this booklet is issued to all people who are entitled to workmen’s compensation.

Finally, I should like to assure the hon. the Minister once again that we welcome this legislation. We thank him for the comprehensive explanation he has give us. We also thank him and his department for all the new benefits which will accrue. We have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast began his speech by saying that he was not over-enthusiastic about this legislation. One probably cannot hold this against the hon. member, because if one belonged to a party in the condition that his party is in, one could hardly have any enthusiasm left for a good piece of legislation. The hon. member complained that the benefits under the new provisions have not been made retrospective. After all, he will understand that one has to draw the line somewhere. Should one, then, go back to 1942, or to 1948? Just how far back should one go in this connection? We know that some people have difficulty with their pensions. In some cases the pension and other benefits were very much smaller previously than they would be now. One simply cannot satisfy all of the people all of the time. The hon. member had better accept this. One simply tries to do one’s best.

The Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act No. 30 of 1941, came into operation on 1 March 1942. Since that time it has been amended 15 times and if this Bill is accepted today, it will be the 16th time in 35 years that the Act has been amended. This actually says a lot for this legislation. When one takes into consideration the fact that the labour and industrial sectors are two of the most lively, dynamic factors in a democratic society modelled on free enterprise, then it can also be understood that the accompanying measures, and the regulating measures in the form of legislation in particular, also have to be adapted from time to time. The Workmen’s Compensation Act forms part of the industrial legislation in South Africa, industrial legislation of which we are justly very proud because it compares very well with similar legislation in most countries of the world, and in some cases even surpasses it. The Workmen’s Compensation Act is also comparable with the best in the Western world, unless one includes countries like England and Sweden which have become entirely socialistic in this regard.

The Bill before us at the moment also effects a number of very important, if small, amendments. For example, we find that the maximum earnings limit, i.e. the insurability limit, is pushed up to R9 600 per annum. In 1970 the amount in question was R5 460 per annum and in 1974 it was R7 260 per annum. In other words, in a matter of seven years the amount has been increased by no less than R4 140. This represents an increase of 76%. This is definite proof of the fact that this Government is in earnest in seeing to the welfare of all the workers of the country.

There is a certain relationship between the drop in the value of money and the rise in the insurability limit. Similarly, there is the same relationship between the salaries of our workers and this limit which is set. It is a manifestation of the immense increase in the salaries of our work people in South Africa which has occurred over the past few years, regardless of whether they are White, Black of Coloured.

The Bill also provides for the commissioner to enter into an agreement so that a global sum of money may be paid by the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund to the commissioner for assurance claims arising during a specific period. This may sound very involved—the hon. member for South Coast said he wondered what the legal practitioners thought of it. It is probably best understood by way of an example. Say for example that worker A is a lorry driver and that after being injured in an accident, he has to spend a considerable time in hospital. The commissioner of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund is then obliged in terms of the Act to regard him as a casualty and have the prescribed payments made to him in the meantime. Then follows the third party claim by the employee against the third party assurance. Only after that can the commissioner institute his claim against the assurance fund concerned. This, again, can also give rise to further litigation before these moneys are paid to the commissioner. The new dispensation will now mean that the commissioner can enter into an agreement with the fund, so that it may be agreed for a certain period, for example a period of 12 months, that a certain amount can be paid to the cmmissioner in respect of the casualties in that period. Not only is this going to save endless administrative expense, it is also going to keep many cases out of court, i.e. legal costs and litigation is going to be restricted. Since we are living at a stage where everyone is trying to be more practical, more productive, and to eliminate as much red tape as possible, it is something which we definitely appreciate, because this is an attempt to make that part of the public service machinery run more smoothly.

In the past an employee who received a maxmum salary of R247 received a maximum temporary disability grant of R185,25. The latter amount is now being increased to R300 per month on a maximum salary scale of R400 per month. But what is of cardinal importance here once again, is that due to the repeal of section 84 of the Act, there is no longer any difference between the various population groups as regards these benefits.

I do not want to elaborate unnecessarily on the pension aspect of the Bill because the hon. the Minister went into this in detail. The amount has now been increased from R1 500 to R2 500, an increase of 60%. I am especially pleased that the hon. the Minister has now suggested that a widow can retain her pension when she remarries. Apart from all the reasons that these people previously had, so to speak, to live in sin if they wanted to keep their pensions, I just believe that if the Act provides for a pension, it should not be a conditional one. Therefore, to me this is a step in the right direction. It is not that I personally am in favour of pensions having something to do with the payment of workmen’s compensation; to me these are two quite different concepts, but this is not the right forum to discuss this.

In regard to pensions I just want to make the remark that a very effective provision also appears in the legislation now, under which the commissioner, in terms of section 49, can now decide whether he wants to pay out the pension in a global sum or not. Previously this had to take place on request, on the request of either the workman or the widow. Many of them simply did not have the knowledge, many of them do not know what all this meant and sometimes they did not even know they could make a request like this. A global sum of money like this often means a great deal for a widow because there are always debts which must be paid and because sometimes there are children who have to go to school and provision has to be made for them.

Another cardinal amendment contained in this legislation deals with the funeral expenses which are now pushed up to R250 for every population group. I have a request which I should like to make of the hon. the Minister in this connection, namely that it will have to be seen to that this provision is not abused. I mean that there should not be an automatic payment of R250, but that payment should only be made for the costs which are incurred. These costs need not therefore include mourners’ expenses or a large funeral dinner. Since this Bill contains only improved and positive provisions, I should like to support its Second Reading of it.

Mr. Speaker, we want to support this Bill with considerable enthusiasm. We believe that the Bill brings about a considerable improvement to the present Act, and therefore we welcome it as a very positive step in the right direction. I would like right at the beginning to commend the hon. the Minister and his department for the move that they have made in this direction and to thank through him the commissioner who, through his department and his workers, has drawn up the Bill. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for his careful and very deliberate description of the various clauses and principles contained in the Bill.

If my memory serves me correctly, this Bill was first tabled last year. Because of the pressure of the session it was not possible for us to deal with this business and as a result we have wasted about six or eight months. This is unfortunate, but this is our whole system. Nevertheless, despite this delay, one is grateful that we are now discussing this particular measure. To give an indication of the importance of this legislation and the great number of people who are involved as a result of these changes, I want to refer to the latest report of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner for the year ending February 1976. In that report we are given certain statistics which give us an indication of how many accidents take place and are reported in South African industry and, perhaps what is more important, the number of man-days or working-days which are lost as a result of compensatable accidents which are handled through this department. The number of accidents at the end of 1974 was 359 758. At the end of 1975 there was a slight drop, but there was still the significant and large figure of 355 615 accidents.