Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches have already stated our opposition to this measure very clearly, both during Second Reading and in the Committee Stage. Our opposition remains unchanged. There is no point in reiterating old arguments. We will therefore vote against this Bill and register our protest in the strongest possible way.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Musgrave, we in these benches will also be recording our objection to this Bill. We too feel that there is no sense in going over what has been said already. We should like, however, to express this party’s strong disapproval of what is being done by way of this measure here today.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are aware, the Armaments Development and Production Corporation of South Africa—Armscor—was established in terms of the Armaments Development and Production Act, 1968, its primary object being to meet the armaments requirements of the Republic, including armaments required for export, and, in the second place, to provide firearms, ammunition or pyrotechnical products to members of the public.

In order to function in the most efficient and economic way, Armscor is operated on business principles and is a body corporate. It may also perform all such acts as are necessary for or incidental to the carrying out of its objects, the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions. The Special Defence Account was established by law in 1974 and in terms of section 2 of the Defence Special Account Act, the moneys in the account are utilized, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, to defray the expenditure incurred in connection with such special defence activities and purchases of the Department of Defence and the Armaments Board as the Minister of Defence may from time to time approve. Although the Defence Force is principal of Armscor, it is not in a position to administer the full scope of Armscor’s transactions on the Special Defence Account itself, and this would in any event constitute a duplication of Armscor’s business administration. Accordingly Armscor itself administers the transactions in respect of the account that are entrusted to it by the Defence Force, while the Defence Force administers its own transactions in respect of the account.

Since Armscor exercises its functions independently within the provisions of the Armaments Development and Production Act, doubt has arisen from a legal point of view as to whether the moneys in the Special Defence Account that are utilized by Armscor constitute State moneys and whether financial control of such moneys may be exercised in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975. If the Exchequer and Audit Act, some provisions of which are not reconcilable with the Armscor Act, were made applicable to Armscor, this would negate the special nature, method of operation and aims of Armscor as provided in its own Act. Because both the Defence Force and Armscor can make payments from the account, there was also doubt as to who should accept responsibility for money in the account and payments made therefrom.

After in-depth discussions between representatives of the Auditor-General, the S.A. Defence Force, Armscor and the Treasury, it was decided to amend the Defence Special Account Act, 1974, so that—

1. (a) it be placed beyond all doubt that money in the Special Defence Account shall be State moneys for the purposes of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975;
2. (b) the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force, as accounting officer of the South African Defence Force, shall be charged with the responsibility of administering and accounting for the moneys in the account received by him and moneys paid from the account by the S.A. Defence Force in connection with the special defence activities and purchases of the South African Defence Force;
3. (c) the chief executive officer of the Armaments Corporation shall be charged with the responsibility of administering and accounting for moneys paid from the account by the corporation in connection with its special defence activities and purchases;
4. (d) the provisions of the Armaments Development and Production Act, 1968, shall apply in respect of the expenditure incurred by the corporation from the account; and
5. (e) auditing of the expenditure by Armscor shall be carried out by the Auditor-General in terms of the provisions of the Armaments Development and Production Act, but reporting to Parliament will as in the past take place in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act.

The amendments contained in clause 2 of the Bill give effect to the above decision.

The remaining clauses of the Bill merely contain name changes and do not require further elaboration. Since the preceding arrangement has been implemented administratively since 1 April 1980, it is proposed that the legislation come into effect on the date mentioned.

I am satisfied that the proposed arrangement, which is of course of a purely administrative nature, is a sound one. Among other things, it affords Armscor more freedom of movement without sacrificing sound financial control and in addition, the chief executive officer of Armscor must now report to Parliament through the Select Committee on Public Accounts concerning his payments from the Special Defence Account.

Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset wish the hon. the Deputy Minister luck in his new portfolio. I think he will find that money is one aspect in which everybody is interested and therefore it is a very important post that he now holds. It is also with some pleasure that I can tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we will be supporting this particular Bill because, in fact, it moves in the direction in which we on these benches have been keen to see Government’s finances moving. Firstly, that funds voted for the defence of South Africa should be used for that purpose. Secondly, that the handling of all Government funds, and of all funds voted by Parliament, should fall within the very close scrutiny of the Auditor-General.

As I understand it, the position will be, even after this Bill has been introduced, that the Auditor-General will do the audit but only with regard to certain activities. However, I think his scrutiny will apply to material portions of the activities of the Special Defence Account.

Mr. Speaker, we have an amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville that we will be moving in the Committee Stage. The scope of this amendment will be that if the Minister does not table the report, the Auditor-General must table it in Parliament. Sensitive information which it is in the interest of the country to withhold can still be excluded at the discretion of the Minister.

Although we support this Bill and, in fact, welcome it, we would like to go further along this road, because we believe that the Auditor-General should be allowed to audit all activities relating to Government departments, and that he should have access to all information and all vouchers. We appreciate the fact that there will be sensitive information which, in the interest of South Africa, cannot be disclosed, but we believe that one can take the Auditor-General into one’s confidence in this regard. We on these benches have full confidence both in the position that has been created and in the incumbent. In fact, we would like to see a situation where the full report of the Auditor-General would eventually be placed before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, which is the body that is responsible to Parliament. If this in fact came about, then I think one of the important functions of the legislature, namely to watch the expenditure of the administration, would be satisfied.

I do not think I need dwell any further on these few points except to reiterate our support for the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the Opposition for their support of this legislation.

It is true that this short measure has in fact had a long history, and that, I feel, it flows largely from work done by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The committee is not seeking more work. I think it has enough; indeed, I think it has more than it can properly deal with. But nevertheless in my opinion it is in the interest of sound, correct administration that the Act be amended in this way. In the past we, and particularly the Select Committee, experienced specific problems in making a proper evaluation of the report of the Auditor-General, and that is why we appreciate it that the Act is now being changed in such a way that the task of the Select Committee will be much simpler in future. I just want to give an explanation regarding the history of this legislation. In the Auditor-General’s report of 1978-’79—and I think it is necessary to state this for the record—he reports as follows (para. 16, p. 107)—

From this it is very clear that the sensitive projects were certified by the hon. the Minister in terms of the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act and that no problems arose. However, I quote further—

I repeat the last sentence—

However, the committee experienced problems with this and that is why we asked the Auditor-General whether he could give us further particulars in this regard in order to indicate what the specific problems are. In reply to a question, the Auditor-General says (S.C.1A-’80 on p. 85)—

which I have just quoted—

Then he goes on—

and the hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to the problems that Armscor is experiencing during his Second Reading speech—

Then he goes on to explain—

A little further on a question is put to Mr. Du Plessis of the Exchequer and he replies as follows (p. 86)—

I think this was actually the crux of the argument. I quote further—

The result of all this is the legislation which has now been introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I think we are succeeding in achieving a much better administrative arrangement.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Wonderboom heartily on his appointment as Deputy Minister of Finance. We sincerely hope he will adorn those ministerial benches for many days to come, because that hon. gentleman is a very likeable person. He came to the House some six months after I did, in 1974, and if I may use the old expression used in English music halls: “My, hasn’t he done well!” And well he deserves to have done too.

[Inaudible.]

I wish the hon. the Minister of Police should keep out of this, because I might drag him into it and he might then be sorry! Sir, we congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister and wish him well in his post. We are looking forward to working with him.

The hon. the Deputy Minister’s Second Reading speech gave us a clear indication why this measure is necessary at this time. Obviously there have een certain accounting difficulties that will now be overcome. We sincerely hope that it will be brought about by this measure. It is a little difficult to understand when one reads it, but having listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech, we sincerely hope that it will assist towards greater efficiency and productivity that I think he is seeking through the introduction of this Bill. Like the hon. member for Edenvale, we too are also pleased to note the role which will now be played by the Auditor-General in the monetary activities of the Ministry of Defence. We certainly regard this as a step in the right direction, and it is to be welcomed.

We should also like to thank the hon. member for Malmesbury for the clear run up he gave us to certain other motivations that brought about this Bill before us today. We are pleased that we can be party to supporting the measure, as it is in the best interests of our Ministry of Defence as well as of the fiscus.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members for Edenvale and Umhlanga for their kind words towards me and also for supporting this measure.

*Sir, I also want to thank the hon. member for Malmesbury for the competent way in which he sketched the background of, the events which gave rise to this Bill. I think it was extremely important that this should be done, for the simple reason that the debate on the Bill is being recorded in Hansard together with the problems that gave rise to the amendment that is before us.

I think I must react to one remark and this was the remark made by the hon. member for Edenvale, when he said that he would have liked to see all the activities with regard to the Special Defence Account being audited. I think I can give the hon. member the assurance that the aim of this legislation is in fact that all activities shall be audited. The only exception that is being made, is with respect to section 42(7) of the Exchequer and Audit Act where the Minister of Finance can in fact exempt certain accounts from being audited. I want to give him the assurance that the Minister of Finance implements the provisions of this section with the greatest of circumspection only. With regard to the sensitive aspect of reporting, I think that the provisions of section 45(1A) of the Exchequer and Audit Act provide for certain amendments to be made after the Auditor-General has already carried out the audit and the Auditor-General and the Prime Minister have consulted together.

Sir, if you will allow me a few moments, I should like to say that it is a great privilege for me to introduce this Bill today. The first speech that I delivered in the House, dealt with defence. That is why it is a special privilege for me, in this privileged position in which the hon. the Prime Minister has appointed me, to be able to introduce a Bill dealing with aspects of defence too, now on the occasion of my first appearance here in this position. It is a very great privilege for me.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville, as follows—

I did motivate the amendment during my Second Reading speech and I believe it is acceptable to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Therefore I do not intend to delay the proceedings of the House any longer.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The objects of the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets are to advise the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on all matters relating to the siting, erection, extension, alteration, use, management and conduct of fresh produce markets, and, in general, to assist the Minister to co-ordinate and rationalize the activities connected with fresh produce markets.

In order to achieve these objects, section 10 of the Act, inter alia, provides that no person shall erect a fresh produce market in the controlled area without the prior approval of the Minister. The controlled area is the whole of the Republic. For financial reasons and with a view to rationalization, it is therefore essential that the erection of fresh produce markets be subject to the approval of the Minister.

However, the Act is silent on what the position would be if a fresh produce market were erected and put into operation without approval. This is a real problem, for two such cases have already occurred. In order to deal with such a situation, a provision is being inserted into section 10 of the Act which is identical to section 10(3) of the Act Abattoir Industry Act, 1976, and provision is also being made for a penal sanction in the event of the provision being violated.

†The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has the power under section 19 of the Act to fix tariffs payable to the owner of a national fresh produce market in respect of the use of, or the performance of a service at, such fresh produce markets.

For practical reasons it has become necessary to make provision for differential tariffs to be fixed by the Minister. I shall mention a few examples of situations which have arisen and which are causing difficulties. Consider, for instance, the position of an office or a storeroom in a market complex. A storeroom close to a cold storage room will be worth more than a storeroom some way from the cold storage room. Accommodation with, for instance, a hand basin will justify a higher rental than accommodation without a basin.

The amendment to section 19 of the Act will authorize the Minister to fix tariffs on a basis which will be more equitable.

The Commission for Fresh Produce Markets requested the amendments and are supported by the S.A. Agricultural Union and the United Municipal Executive of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment to this very important post. I say “important” because the provision of food is of the utmost importance in the world today, and therefore in South Africa too. I also use the word important because this hon. Minister is going to be faced with increasing inputs in agriculture and in the months and years that lie ahead, he will have to give a great deal of attention to the ever increasing food prices as well as to the increasing necessity of producing more food, not only for South Africa, but also for our neighbouring States in Africa, as well as in the rest of the world. That is why I wish him everything of the best and I hope that he will be able to acquit himself of his task well.

However, if we look at the proposed amendments, I am not absolutely sure of whether I can support the hon. the Minister with regard to them. I first want to hear what the hon. the Minister will have to say to some of the questions that I am going to put to him and about the remarks I am going to make. In the first instance the hon. the Minister said that the objectives of the commission which provided him with advice on this particular amending Bill, dealt in general with the rationalization of the industry and that the commission must assist in co-ordinating and rationalizing the activities related to fresh produce markets. If we look at the situation, particularly with regard to the fruit and vegetable industry in South Africa, one must ask whether this commission can really provide the hon. the Minister with good advice. If one looks at two newspaper articles that appeared last weekend, we see that there are tremendous problems in this industry. In Rapport on Sunday there was the heading—

If one looks at the contents of the article, one sees that the industry is in a position where the producer receives as little as 34% of the selling price of vegetables in South Africa. If one looks at fruit, one sees that the producer receives as little as 36%—in round figures. If one takes another look at the articles to which I am referring, one sees that it alleges that the farmer is being left entirely at the mercy of the market agents, the agents who carry out their work in the national markets which fall under the control of the hon. the Minister’s department and which are referred to in this legislation.

If one takes a further look at the conditions in the industry, it is very clear to me that although this industry may be the one which is subject to the least control—and I want to state this point forcefully, nevertheless, in spite of that it is in a position where the primary producer receives a very small percentage of the price that the consumer pays and where the consumer has to pay a prohibitive price for that particular product. If it was a case of having problems with production—if, for instance, there was low production or a shortage of fruit and vegetables—we could have understood that the prices would be prohibitive. However, the truth is that the industry is in fact producing too much. Every day at these markets under the control of this commission, to which the hon. the Minister also referred—we see food having to be thrown away, and the farmer being left at the mercy of those market agents who operate at the markets under the control of the commission.

When I look at this legislation, I try to establish whether it is going to make any contribution whatsoever towards solving the problems in the industry, for both the producer and the consumer. When I study the Bill under discussion, it does not seem to me that it offers any solution. In the first place, when we look at the definition of a “fresh produce market”, as it occurs in the principal Act, we find that it is described as follows—

In terms of this definition it means that every place in South Africa where products are offered and where they are offered for sale to the public, can be classified as a fresh produce market. This means that every shop, every small vegetable shop, no matter how small or large it may be, may be controlled by the legislation under discussion, on the strength of this definition. Is it the aim of the hon. the Minister to exercise control wherever fresh produce is offered for sale? I think the hon. the Minister must answer this question. If this is the case, it would create an impossible situation. Surely there are tens of thousands of places, if not more, where fresh produce is offered for sale to the public. I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with this aspect.

Then, I refer the hon. the Minister to controlled areas too. In terms of the original Act, the places to be controlled would be announced in the Gazette. However, the situation today is that the whole of South Africa is being controlled. Since it is now the case that the whole of South Africa is being controlled, one wonders whether it is at all necessary now to refer in the legislation under discussion to controlled areas. As far as fresh produce markets are concerned, control is being exercised in any event. Therefore, in this respect I do not see the necessity for including that word in the legislation under discussion either. The definition of “controlled area” creates the impression that there are still areas that are not controlled in South Africa at the moment. In view of the actual situation, however, we know that this is not the case. I have no objection to the recommendation in this legislation to the effect that the hon. the Minister should have the right to impose certain tariffs on national fresh produce markets. There are a certain number of produce markets. We know where they are and I think it is quite correct that the hon. the Minister should have the right to intervene and make arrangements if he thinks that it is necessary for tariffs to be established. He gave us some examples of packing rooms and office space that must be established and other costs that must be incurred at those national fresh produce markets where the people who lease those premises then have to pay certain amounts in that regard. Then it is also the duty of the hon. the Minister to ensure that those tariffs are kept as low as possible because if the hon. the Minister were not to do this, it would mean that those additional costs would simply have to be transferred by the agent who leases those sites. He would have to recover those costs, and once again it would be from the primary producer.

Mr. Speaker, I have read this legislation. I have also listened to what the hon. the Minister told us. I should very much like to support this legislation if the hon. the Minister can convince me that this legislation is really necessary and that it is going to make a contribution towards bringing the product to the consumer at a lower price and if it will help at all towards guaranteeing a better price for the primary producer. However, from what I have understood from the legislation and after I have listened to what the hon. the Minister said in his speech, to my mind this legislation is simply going to lead to further control in a sphere which is already being controlled to some extent at the moment. In principle, of course, one is opposed to unnecessary Government control. In principle both sides of this House agree that control and a heavy hand of the State should have very light influence or none at all on our economy. I am not convinced that this legislation is heading towards less control and not of more control. I should very much like to listen to the hon. the Minister’s reply to these questions before we will be able to indicate whether we will really be able to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today the hon. member for Wynberg was very critical of our whole system of marketing fresh fruit and vegetables. He virtually condemned it completely. This is the system whereby we place our fruit and vegetables on our markets and where everyone is then free to come and bid for those fruit and vegetables. The free economy also plays its role there. Anyone can come along and pay for that product. However, the hon. member for Wynberg is blaming the commission because it did not rectify that market situation. This is not something that can be rectified easily. We have had our fresh produce markets for years and they have worked very well. Of course, there are ways in which fresh produce markets can be manipulated but I think the fact that we now have a commission to investigate these matters, cannot but be a good thing. One must simply give the commission a chance. There are various reasons why the marketing of fresh vegetables and fruit is very difficult and I want to mention a few of them only. In the first instance, there is the large variety of products. I wonder whether the hon. member for Wynberg realizes that there are at least 43 different types of these products. Just think of the problems related to controlling not only the production, but the marketing thereof. It is an impossible task. The producers of such products are found throughout the country, everywhere. Today a certain producer plants a certain product, but tomorrow he no longer does so. Today one has him on one’s books, but tomorrow he is no longer there. These people change from one product to the next according to the demands of the market conditions. I do not believe that we can expect that a proper system of control can ever be applied to such products.

There have already been attempts at establishing voluntary marketing schemes for these various products, but one after the other they failed. We have had this experience again with regard to tomatoes. The tomato farmers were very keen to introduce a scheme, but there was so much opposition that they were simply unable to achieve their goal. In my opinion, it is an almost impossible task to establish such schemes under the Marketing Act.

I believe that we can assume that in the marketing of fresh vegetables in particular, we will always be faced with surplusses and shortages, for the reasons that I have pointed out. I want to say in future we shall always have to make use of fresh product markets in the form of those we have today. There may perhaps be a substantial change, in the same way as a change has been introduced in the USA and the auction system has in fact given way to a fixed price system. A great deal of progress has already been made in this direction in our country in the sense that agents come to mutual agreements and that prices are established in the morning. Then an attempt is made to maintain the agreed prices for the rest of the day. We are slowly but surely moving away from the auction system, but it still remains the basis of the determination of prices. I believe that these markets will always remain a vital link between the fresh produce producer and the consumer.

What is the task of the market and the commission that controls the markets? It is to ensure that the necessary facilities are made available for the farmers to offer their products under the best possible conditions. On the other hand they must ensure that there will be proper facilities for the proper handling of the product so that it can reach the consumer in the condition that he would like it to reach him. The product must still be fresh and well cared for.

When the principal Act was passed in 1970, I also had the privilege of making contribution towards the relevant debate. At the time, I raised the idea that apart from the advisory powers granted to it, the commission should also obtain further powers which would enable it to do even more for the farmers. I laid particular emphasis on the possibilities of research with regard to new methods. I also had in mind that the commission should be able to grant more assistance with regard to matters such as packaging on a small scale. Today there are agents who go as far as that, but I believe that it should also be a task of the commission to go into this matter properly. Cold storage facilities are available at all our markets, but these can still be further expanded.

As far as the processing of products is concerned, it is not at all impossible, particularly when there are excesses, for the commission to buy up products and process them or make them available to processing factories. I foresee that something of this nature could be quite possible.

Furthermore there is the very difficult problem of bringing products to the market. I realize that this is a very difficult matter, but nevertheless I believe that the commission will also be able to play a role in this regard.

I notice that provision is being made in clause 2 for various tariffs that may be levied. This proposed amendment fits in exactly with the ideas that I expressed in 1970. This will put the commission and the market authorities in a position to provide better services to the farmers and to make the farmers pay for the earnings that they obtained as a result of marketing. In this way a better product can be offered to the consumer.

I want to express a few general ideas on the matter. I believe that the basis of good control of any product, regardless of what product it may be, is to be found in voluntary co-operatives, and particularly with regard to fresh vegetables and fruit it is unavoidable that we should fall back onto the co-operative form of organization, because then we will be assured of a good service. I do not believe that control boards would be the answer in this case. If a co-operative is a success, it will not be necessary to establish control boards either.

If I may address a message to the farmers of South Africa here—one of these days I may perhaps not be here to speak on their behalf—I would advise them to support their co-operatives because there is no better way of obtaining good marketing for their products. My experience of the citrus industry is that it is operated entirely in accordance with the co-operative system and this forms the best basis of the control board system, because everything that is done, is being done with the permission of the farmers and their co-operatives.

I believe that the control board system also serves a useful purpose as the legal power which the co-operative will exercise, and I feel that we should protect this system for as long as possible. Quite by chance, the present Minister of Agriculture, the Deputy Minister, myself and a few other members of the Government and of the Opposition served on the Select Committee that investigated the Marketing Act. We travelled the entire world to investigate marketing systems, and in the report that we produced, we pointed out that although the marketing system in South Africa may not be the very best, it is definitely one of the best in the entire world. In fact, we were able to recommend very few changes for improving the South African marketing system.

Mr. Speaker, following on what the hon. member for Humansdorp has said. I would like to say that we too believe that Act 82 of 1970, which we now propose amending, is certainly a very valuable link between consumer and producer. When this Act was introduced in 1970 it was agreed to with acclaim by all those who were speaking on behalf of the agricultural sector of our community. It is interesting to note that the Act has only been amended once since 1970. This is a very rare occurrence when it comes to Acts introduced by this Government. Nevertheless, it appears that this is a good Act and the amendments being introduced today are welcomed by our party.

Before I continue I would also like to extend to the hon. the Deputy Minister our congratulations on his appointment and to wish him success in the future in the position that he holds. We know that he is a knowledgeable man and has dealt with agricultural matters on many occasions in the past. Yet he is dealing with a very difficult portfolio. We know that he has very many control boards to deal with, possibly as many as there are members of his party in the House at this moment. We only hope that he will be able to deal more successfully with the control boards than his party leaders apparently are dealing with the members of his party in the House.

I cannot understand the reasoning of the hon. member for Wynberg. At one stage he appeared to agree with the amendments in the Bill, while the next minute he started putting all sorts of conditions as to why he might not be prepared to accept the amendments. He wanted assurances from the hon. the Minister that this Bill is a good Bill. I cannot understand this because he must surely know that when the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill he quite clearly indicated that the S.A. Agricultural Union was agreeable to the amendments proposed in the Bill. [Interjections.] He also asked whether this Bill would have any effect on establishing a better price for products. This is beyond my comprehension, because anybody reading the amendments being introduced by this Bill would see quite clearly that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the question of the price of products.

I just want to say that the Act which this Bill seeks to amend was certainly a great step forward in the control of the orderly marketing of fresh produce in the Republic. It improved marketing facilities and certainly gave municipalities, which as we know control fresh produce markets throughout South Africa, an opportunity of obtaining real financial assistance in order to erect proper and adequate facilities for the marketing of fresh produce. The Act also created a central controlling authority which, I believe, brought specialized knowledge and advice to the various municipalities in regard to the conduct of their marketing of fresh produce.

In certain areas, however, there are difficulties with the establishment of fresh produce markets. Let me, for instance, point in particular to the East London area where we have experienced some difficulty in relation to large expenditure on a new fresh produce market, with another fresh produce market shortly thereafter being erected in one of our embryo independent homelands. I believe that this aspect should, of course, be investigated, not necessarily by the commission, but certainly by the Government, because we must make sure that this sort of situation does not again develop in our country.

Any improvements to this Act would be welcomed. We have looked at clause 1 of the Bill and see that it adds to the prohibitions in the sense that it prohibits the use of fresh produce markets erected without the commission’s approval, but this leads me to put a question to the hon. the Minister. What is the situation in regard to any small municipal markets which were erected prior to the introduction of the Act in 1970, markets which may have been lying dormant for many, many years, but which the local authorities may wish to utilize again? They have not, in terms of the Act itself, been erected in a controlled area without the written approval of the hon. the Minister, because at the time when they were erected it was not necessary to obtain his permission. I feel that it would not be necessary to prohibit the use of these markets. They are small markets which could be opened and closed for certain periods of time by the small local authorities, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to satisfy us that this extension of the Act does not affect those small municipal markets.

We agree with the other clauses of the Bill and will support it throughout.

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I should like to associate myself with what previous hon. members said when they wished the hon. the Minister everything of the best for the years which lie ahead. However, I think it would be wrong for us on this side of the House not to thank our previous hon. Minister of Agriculture, who served in that capacity for many years, for what he did for the farmers of South Africa. I still remember the piece of good philosophy which he often expressed in this House when he was asked what a farmer’s best year was. His reply was always: “Next year”. I should like to apply this same philosophy to the Ministry and I hope that our best Minister will be the one who will have to get things done during the next few years. With these words we wish to thank our hon. new Minister very sincerely for accepting this post and we wish to welcome him. We trust that he will do the job well.

This Bill is not really a substantial one, in the sense that it consists of essential amendments which have been necessitated by the demands of the times. The comments made by the hon. member for Wynberg during the initial stages of the debate, when he referred to a report in Rapport on the problems existing in the vegetable and fruit industries, had in my view no specific bearing on the Bill as it stands and the amendments which are being made here. I think they had a direct bearing on the regulation of the marketing of vegetables and fruit, but not specifically on the clauses contained in the Bill. Perhaps I shall refer briefly to this again later.

I think that if we look at the Bill as it reads at present there is one point which the hon. member for Wynberg raised which could perhaps be important. It is the definition of a fresh produce market. A fresh produce market is indirectly involved in these clauses which are being amended. That is correct. But the spirit in which this Act has been administrated since the ’seventies is also the spirit in which these amendments should now be effected. I think consideration should be given to a better definition of a fresh produce market. Perhaps one should inquire whether this should be written into the Act or whether it should be done by way of regulation by the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets. I think this is one aspect which one could perhaps mention here.

When we look at section 2 of the principal Act we see that it provides that the commission shall see to the sitting, erection, extension, alteration, use and management of a fresh produce market. When one reads section 3 one sees that even the activities of persons responsible for the management and conduct of, and performance of services at, fresh produce markets, whether such services be rendered to the farmers or the buying public, are regulated by certain provisions which are made. Now the question is whether, in terms of the penalties provided for in section 36, the facilities which have to be made available can be made available without any control measures applying to them. We find that buildings or facilities can be made available by the larger produce markets which do not comply with the requirements of the commission or the department. Section 36 provides that a fine of only R400 may be imposed in this respect. It refers to management. The very object of the amendment of section 36 by clause 3 is that permission should be obtained for the erection of a building. I do not think that any hon. member in this House has any problem on this score. Therefore we can readily say that this matter should receive priority and that it is consequently a good amendment which the hon. the Minister is making. As for the smaller municipal markets—which the hon. member for East London North raised here—they fall within the definition of the Act referring to the erection and alteration of building complexes. The permission of the hon. the Minister may be obtained in this regard. They cannot be excluded.

Another aspect raised by the hon. member for Wynberg is the question of a controlled area. He said that the whole of South Africa was a controlled area and asked why this should be written into the Bill. I think this is essential, specifically in view of the times in which we are living and in view of the problems being experienced by the entire farming community with the marketing of vegetables and fruit and the prices which the buying public has to pay for that produce. It is absolutely essential that on its part, the Government should set everything in motion to make the necessary facilities available so that provision may be made, in terms of the Act, for supply and demand. In this way better services could be rendered. As far as the controlled areas are concerned, I want to say that it is essential that there should be control in respect of these facilities and that the best should be made available to the public as a whole.

There is one final matter which I should like to touch upon. Vegetables and fruit are among the most difficult agricultural products to control—and I am not referring now to control under the Marketing Act. Firstly, the volume of the vegetables and fruit produced is unpredictable. This varies from year to year according to the circumstances experienced by the farmer. After production, however, they are among the most perishable products there are. This again creates problems in respect of the market, the market agents and the distributors, if they want to distribute it at a minimum cost or at a minimum commission or profit margin. This is where the basic problem arises and this is why it is difficult for a Government or an authority to introduce a system which, while it centralizes control in the hands of a single body and places the responsibility for the whole vegetable and fruit industry on that body, it also has to see to it that the efficiency which is specifically required in this industry is displayed. For this very reason it is extremely difficult to control these products.

The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to another very important aspect. With reference to the question of control he singled out figures here which indicate that the farmer who produces vegetables and fruit receives very little, on a percentage basis, of the selling price. Last year and the previous year hon. members on that side of the House vented their spleen over the control of our agricultural produce under the Marketing Act, over the inefficiency of the marketing of the controlled products.

We were talking about the control boards.

That was one of the very points on which hon. members on the other side were so critical.

About the inefficiency.

I ask myself whether it is not true that it is precisely in the case of the controlled products that the farmer realizes the greatest amount from the selling price, while on the other hand the control also ensures the consumer of supply at reasonable prices. If one looks at agriculture as a whole then, and at the marketing of agricultural products, it is essential that one should maintain an equilibrium in one’s view of the whole matter and see things in perspective, and that one should not jeopardize the whole system. I should therefore like to make an appeal to hon. members on the opposite side of the House. I know what their views are, but the impression which their speeches create in the minds of the general public is that the principle of controlled marketing under the Marketing Act is wrong. This is precisely why I am glad that the hon. member for Wynberg today pointed out the problems in respect of fruit and vegetables as well as, on the other hand, the advantages of controlled marketing as such.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Carletonville spoke a fair amount of sense, which we were very pleased to hear, because there are many occasions on which he does not speak all that much sense. On this occasion he touched on the reservations we actually have about this particular Bill. He referred to the description given of “a fresh produce market”. He suggested that either through legislation or by regulation this should be looked at. What we are worried about—and we refer specifically to clause 1—is that in terms of the definition of “fresh produce market” any small greengrocer, any independent operator or any group of farmers who want to sell their produce in town at a shop reserved for that purpose can be put out of business at the whim of the hon. the Minister. That is the way the law reads at the moment. That is as it stands in the existing Act. I must say that, when we looked at the Act, we were somewhat surprised that a definition such as that should have been allowed through in 1970 when the principal Act came into being. We believe it is reasonable for us to ask the hon. the Minister for an explanation of how he wants to use the provisions of this particular clause. What sort of premise does he envisage banned? What sort of fresh produce market does he envisage he might take action against in terms of this particular clause? I think I am correct in saying that the hon. the Minister already has the power in terms of the existing Act to prohibit the building of a new fresh produce market. What we are in fact saying now is that in terms of this new subsection, if one should have been built the hon. the Minister has the additional power to stop it operating.

Are you going to Durban?

I wish that hon. member would decide upon his retirement from this House. I am pretty sure it is overdue. We are all very tired of him and it is about time he retired. Whether or not I am going to Durban is … [Interjections.] One thing that that hon. member can rest assured of is that I shall be back in this House.

I was a little surprised at the comments of the hon. member of the NRP who I do not think really showed a tremendous grasp of what he was talking about. He used as one of his arguments that this amendment had received the approval of the S.A. Agricultural Union. A living example of what approval of the S.A. Agricultural Union can do for one is the hon. member for Carletonville, the former leader of the Mealie Broederbond. Because he was sponsored by the S.A. Agricultural Union he lost out completely. He was totally defeated when it came to the mealie election and he is now out in the cold. What I am saying is that the S.A. Agricultural Union is not always correct and it does not always speak for the farmers.

In this instance I am not sure that the S.A. Agricultural Union is speaking for the fresh produce farmers, the farmers who, for example, attempt to make things a little easier and cheaper for the consumer by providing marketing facilities in smaller premises, many of them in controlled areas. I know that my wife does a considerable amount of shopping at one of these establishments and as a result buys far cheaper than she ever possibly could on the Johannesburg fresh produce market. I am not knocking fresh produce markets, but I believe that in a free enterprise system it is absolutely necessary to provide every facility for free enterprise. Hon. members on that side of the House are, through the hon. the Prime Minister, committed to a free enterprise system. Here we are dealing with a clause which says that the Minister is going to control further. Again, the hon. member for Carletonville spoke about the subject of control, and I am very pleased indeed that he made the distinction that this side of the House always made. Whenever there is control in agriculture we are not per se against control boards. We are against the inefficiency of certain control boards. That is the difference. We do not quarrel about control.

Which one?

For a start, I can mention the Meat Board, and if the hon. member wants another one I can mention the Dairy Board. However, I would be talking away from this measure if I continued further along those lines. The decision on whether or not we support this particular measure depends on the answer of the hon. the Minister. We should like to know from him what sort of premise is involved and envisaged in this clause. What is he going to ban? What sort of premise is he going to prohibit from operating? I think these are reasonable questions. We have listened to two hon. members from the other side of the House and neither of them have said anything about this. We do not know what he is talking about. However, we have no quarrel at all with the ensuing clauses which provide that if one provides better facilities then a different scale of charges and a different tariff can operate. But if the hon. the Minister already has the power in terms of the existing Act to prohibit the building of fresh produce markets, I find it a little difficult to understand why he now seeks the power to prohibit existing fresh produce markets, markets which are already operating, from continuing to operate. This is what makes us suspicious. This is why we asked him to explain what his intentions are. We listened with a great deal of interest to his introduction of the Bill but he did not say a word about it, not one solitary word, and we know from bitter experience from this Government that when it comes to food prices they consider control and the middleman more than they consider the farmer or the consumer.

That is not true.

We would suggest that there is good reason for that, because so many hon. members on the other side of the House have vested interests in those control operations. So many of them sit on inefficient control boards, boards which have done very badly over the years.

I think I can sum up what I have been trying to say by requesting the hon. the Minister to give us a reply to that specific on clause 1 and, only if his answer is satisfactory, shall we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Wynberg, the hon. member for Humansdorp and the hon. member for Carletonville for their congratulations to me on my appointment to this post. I greatly appreciate their words. I also believe that one needs such good wishes when one occupies this position.

Furthermore, I should also like to refer to my predecessor in this office, and to avail myself of the opportunity of paying tribute to him for the great service he rendered and the great contribution he made to agriculture in South Africa. I think he has won his spurs. His name will always be associated with agriculture, so I want to take the opportunity of thanking him for his contribution to this portfolio over the years.

Now the farmers’ cattle are going to get free train rides.

I want to wish my hon. predecessor well in his new portfolio, that of Transport Affairs. I know that the farmers will find him a sympathetic man when it comes to tariffs.

I just want to point out that the hon. member for Wynberg seems to be under the wrong impression here. He spoke about the vegetable marketing system. If I understood the hon. member correctly, he alleged that the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets had to advise me in connection with the fresh vegetables marketing system. Did I understand the hon. member correctly? Does he mean that the commission is not advising me adequately in this connection?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister understood me correctly in part.

The hon. member says that I understood him correctly in part. In what respect do I not understand the hon. member correctly? I should not like to misquote the hon. member.

I can explain.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member for Wynberg to make another speech now.

The hon. member for Wynberg seemed to criticize the advice given me by the commission. However, I want to put it to the hon. member that the commission also has a specific function, a specific field in which it can move and operate. The hon. member is quite confused. He seems to think that it is the National Marketing Council we are discussing now. I want the hon. member to understand that we are not dealing with the National Marketing Council now. We are dealing with the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets.

I know that perfectly well.

In order to help the hon. member to remove some of his confusion and to be clearer in his own mind …

The hon. member for Carletonville understood me much better than you understand me now.

… I want to put it to the hon. member that the function of the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets is defined as follows in the principal Act. I quote from section 2(2)—

The hon. member for Wynberg seems to be very critical of the present marketing system. He quoted from a report in Rapport in which it is said that the producer receives only 34% of the consumer price of vegetables in the trade, and that the producer receives only 36% of the selling price of fruit in the trade. Of course, it is the price eventually paid in the retail trade of which the producer receives only 34% and 36% respectively, and not the price which is normally paid on the market. Now I should like to know from the hon. member—he covered quite a wide field and also referred to food that was thrown away—whether I understood him correctly. Is his party in favour of control boards and control schemes in agriculture? I want to know whether the hon. member is for or against the whole question of control.

May I reply later or must I do so now?

The hon. member may reply right now.

We are in favour of it as long as it is done efficiently.

As long as marketing takes place efficiently?

As long as the control is exercised efficiently.

Efficient control, therefore. So the hon. member is quite in favour of control boards and the system of control boards. [Interjections.] This is a public debating point which the hon. members have raised in this debate. I am referring to the whole question of marketing and control. We are going to have an election one of these days and I should like to have it on record whether that party is going to abolish control boards, yes or no. This is a very cardinal point. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wynberg has tried to escape from his dilemma by saying that they will also retain the control boards. The hon. member and his party know that the control boards and the Marketing Act itself are two of the pillars on which agriculture in particular, and the stability of the consumer and the producer in this country, are based. I am not suggesting here today that the control boards never make mistakes.

Oh, no!

Not all. Anyone can make mistakes.

And some control boards more than others!

It is a question of people’s judgment. However, I want to say this: Show me, bring me a better system than the present one we are following in South Africa. I am saying this from the point of view of the producer as well as the consumer.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also made a few allegations here. May I just put a very direct question to the hon. member for Orange Grove: Will he retain the control system when his party comes to power?

Yes, but they will be much more efficient than at the moment.

I just wanted to know that. Then those hon. members should say, when they address the public, when they address the electorate, that they will retain the control board system, because the criticism which has been voiced here today has been directed not so much against the conduct of the control boards, but against the system itself. It has been said that this system is causing the rise in food prices.

There is another point I wish to discuss with the hon. member for Wynberg. If ever we want an example in our country of the functioning of a free market mechanism, where it functions freely without any impediment, then it is the example of our fresh produce markets, for in this connection virtually all our fruit and vegetables are free of any form of control. The hon. member made the point that this is one of the groups of products of which the price has risen most. The price of vegetables is one of the prices which has shown the greatest increase in recent times, after that of meat. Now the question I ask is this: If control is the reason for higher food prices in South Africa, why have the prices of these uncontrolled products like fruit and vegetables also risen considerably? That is the question that has to be answered. If it is believed that control is responsible for the rise in prices and that the free market mechanism brings about low food prices in South Africa, surely the price of vegetables should not have gone up as much as it has in recent times. This is a substantive argument. It is an argument which cannot be disputed.

The hon. member for Wynberg went further and mentioned the question of the definition of a market. The hon. member for Orange Grove also touched on the point regarding the definition of a market. I want to tell these two hon. members, as well as the hon. member for Carletonville, that I have looked again at the definition of a fresh produce market, i.e. that it is a place erected or intended for the displaying for sale and the sale of fresh produce in public, and it is clear that a misunderstanding could in fact arise here regarding the precise interpretation of this definition. [Interjections.] In response to the arguments of the hon. member for Carletonville and the hon. member for Wynberg, as well as those of the hon. member for Orange Grove, although he will not be here much longer, I shall reconsider the definition, even if only in memory of him, the temporary hon. member for Orange Grove. I shall consult the law advisers. I shall look into the matter again, therefore, as a sensible Government should—and this is a sensible Government.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to define his intention as to what sort of premises he envisages. On that basis we may be able to support him. Against what sort of premises does he intend taking action?

I want to make it quite clear that we wish to have an orderly marketing of fresh produce in South Africa. In order to gain the hon. member’s support for the legislation, I want to point out that a market is an expensive operation these days. It is very much subject to the economy of scale. We know that many of our municipal markets find themselves in such financial difficulties that we have had to assist them through the commission. The Treasury has accommodated fresh produce markets in respect of a percentage of their capital expenditure. Therefore the whole motive behind the legislation, as it is put in the principal Act, is to rationalize the industry in order to keep marketing costs as low as possible.

I may point out to the hon. member that if a tendency were to arise for markets which are not rendered economically viable by the volume of their activities to be established at various places, markets which may have the effect of harming existing markets to such an extent that their viability is also endangered …

But that is free enterprise.

I shall reply to the hon. member on that.

If there is a big market and a local authority which virtually adjoins it also wants to establish a market, I shall intervene, but I shall not act unless I have been advised by the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets. That is why such a commission exists. In such a case, they will conduct a proper investigation. When all the parties concerned have been consulted, they advise the Minister. Then we conduct a departmental inquiry into the matter as well.

I certainly do not intend to close the greengrocer’s shop on every corner. The greengrocer is not a market. The department regards a market as a place where the produce of various producers is sold in competition to various buyers. We do not regard as a market a person who buys vegetables at a market to sell it elsewhere. Such a person is a greengrocer. We want to draw a very clear distinction there.

I want to give the hon. member the following assurance, too: If a market is established anywhere which benefits the industry, the consumer and the producer, I shall not oppose the establishment of such a market. Nor do I intend to close down any existing place where vegetables and fruit are bought and sold. That is not my intention at all; I have no sinister motives and the hon. member may take my word for that.

All I intend with the legislation is to make sure that I have the powers to enable us to bring about meaningful rationalization in the industry. We do not want rationalization just for the sake of more control or anything of that nature. We just want to rationalize the industry because a market has become an expensive enterprise. There are many big markets which only begin to be profitable when their turnover runs into millions of rands. It is certainly not my intention to kill initiative or to hinder marketing. Our premise is that the better and the more easily one can allow marketing to take place for the producer as well as the consumer, the more the consumer and the producer will benefit. That is my standpoint.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would object if 20 or 30 farmers decided to join forces to rent a large site in the northern suburbs of Cape Town to establish a market there in order to sell their produce directly to the public on a large scale?

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member referring to a situation where a lot of farmers all have their own stalls for selling their produce directly to the public?

Mr. Speaker, this may possibly be the case, or they may come together and deliver their products there in the morning so that it may be sold to the public directly for the benefit of the primary producer. Therefore the farmer will not have a separate stall, since they will all bring their produce together and will arrange their finances among themselves.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand the matter, the hon. member is referring to a greengrocer’s licence, i.e. a case where a person has to have a licence to be able to trade in a municipal area. Therefore he brings his product there in order to sell it there. It is also possible that someone may sell it on their behalf, and in such a case a dealer’s licence is required. That is not a market.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the hon. member for Humansdorp. I understand that this is to be his last term in this House. We are really sorry to lose this hon. member. I was privileged to serve with him on the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act for quite a number of years. We got to know him there as a great authority on the co-operative movement in South Africa in particular and also as a person with a remarkable knowledge of the co-operative movement. He also has a very controlled view of matters and always came to the sittings of the commission well prepared and made a very positive contribution.

The hon. member spoke about controlled marketing and said that that sort of marketing should be retained in South Africa. I want to assure the hon. member that I agree with him that our agricultural control boards are essential institutions for orderly marketing and stability, not only for the farmers, but for the consumers as well. I believe that the hon. member for Humansdorp and I myself would be prepared to debate this matter with anyone, because we believe in the system. We believe that in the long run it is in the interests of both the consumer and producer. I hope that even after he has left this House, the hon. member will continue to make just as active a contribution to agriculture as he has made in this House, and we wish him many peaceful and pleasant years to come.

The hon. member for Carletonville also spoke about the definition of a fresh produce market, but since I have already dealt with that, I shall not react to that any further. The hon. member said that as far as fresh produce and vegetables were concerned, the perishable nature of the vegetables made it a very difficult product to market. It means that one cannot easily store that product unless there are cold-storage facilities, and it also means that when that product is ready on the fields, it has to be marketed within just a few days. I agree that this is one of the factors causing such enormous fluctuations in the supply as well as the price of vegetables. These can be attributed to the fact that one cannot regulate the supply of this product.

The hon. member for Orange Grove made quite a distasteful remark here about the S.A. Agricultural Union. The hon. member said the Agricultural Union was a kind of Broederbond.

No, I did not say so.

The hon. member did use the name “Broederbond” here.

No, I referred to that hon. member in the context of a kind of “Mealie Broederbond”.

So the hon. member calls the farmers’ organization a Mealie Broederbond? I just want to have it placed on record that the hon. member for Orange Grove said that the maize producers’ organization was the Mealie Broederbond.

No, I did not say so.

He said it and it is on record, and I want to assure him that I shall use the knowledge I have wherever I go during the coming election. [Interjections.] The hon. member also referred scornfully to the fact that we had consulted the S.A. Agricultural Union, but he asked whether they really represented the vegetable producers and the producers of fresh produce. The hon. member asked how we knew they were representative, for look at the situation that arose with Samso and Sampi. I take cognizance of the motion of no confidence in the S.A. Agricultural Union which the hon. member has moved here on behalf of the PFP.

You are overstating the case.

The hon. member cast a reflection on the integrity of the S.A. Agricultural Union. I challenge him to say that this is not true. The hon. member for Orange Grove criticized me for having said in my speech—

Do not worry, the farmers of Durban North will support him.

However, the hon. member asks how we know they are speaking for the farmers. In other words, the hon. member is suggesting that when we asked the S.A. Agricultural Union what their standpoint was, they lied to us and cheated us. That was what the hon. member said.

That is absolute nonsense.

I take cognizance of it, and I hope the farmers will hear it too.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that it is our contention that the S.A. Agricultural Union actually lied and cheated the hon. the Minister in its advice to him?

Order! The hon. the Minister used strong words to give his interpretation of what had been said. He went too far by using the words “lying” and “cheating”.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make matters difficult for you. I might just explain what I am trying to say. The hon. member criticized me for having said that I had consulted the S.A. Agricultural Union and that they had agreed to this legislation. The statement I actually made in the House was that we had obtained the agreement of the Agricultural Union. The hon. member then asked me how I knew that the Agricultural Union was speaking for the farmers. He said: Look what happened with the mealie election. He also said: You pretended to speak for the farmers, but it was not true.

He said the union could be wrong.

Yes, but he asked me whether I believed them. He asked me how I knew whether they were speaking for the farmers. However, I take the Agricultural Union at its word. I want to place it on record today that I accept the word of the S.A. Agricultural Union. Unlike the hon. member for Orange Grove, I do not wish to cast reflections on their honesty and integrity. I accept their word. I accept their word as the representatives of the producers. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister is now stating the matter quite correctly. When he used the words “lied” and “cheated”, he was giving too strong an interpretation to the words used by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I feel that is unreasonable. The hon. the Minister must withdraw those words and repeat what he has just said.

Sir, I shall withdraw the words “lied” and “cheated” and repeat exactly what I meant. We have the situation that I said in Parliament that we had consulted the South African Agricultural Union and obtained their consent. I want to emphasize that I accept the word of the S.A. Agricultural Union in this connection. As against this, I got the impression here that the hon. member for Orange Grove was casting a reflection on the integrity of the S.A. Agricultural Union …

Certain of its members, members sitting on that side of the House!

… and on the correctness of the information supplied to me by the S.A. Agricultural Union. The hon. member for Orange Grove questioned the correctness of the information supplied by the S.A. Agricultural Union. He brought the truth of the whole matter into dispute, into question. He questioned whether the S.A. Agricultural Union had told me the truth. I want to repeat that the Government, and that includes me as Minister, accepts the word of the farmers in this country.

That has nothing to do with it.

When they tell me something, then I believe it. I do not wish, even by implication, to question the integrity of such an eminent organization as the South African Agricultural Union. That organization has faithfully served the farmers in this country for years. Throughout our history, it has rendered a service to the farmers. It consists of people who have sacrificed and are still sacrificing their time for the farmers. I want to state publicly that as Minister, I will not allow their integrity to be questioned, I will not allow them to be slandered and presented as people who do not tell the truth. I will not allow them to be accused of being people who would misinform a Minister.

We’ll get the proper Hansard tomorrow.

My party has no truck with that sort of thing. I want to place it on record today and to say to the hon. member for Orange Grove that if he refers to the S.A. Agricultural Union in those terms in my presence again, I shall crush him every time as I have crushed him this afternoon. I shall do it every time. I want to ask him not to speak of the farmers of South Africa in that way.

You are twisting it now.

I want to request the hon. member for Orange Grove …

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point?

No, the hon. member must just withdraw the word “twisting”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. May I take a point of order?

Order! There is no point of order to be taken on my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is continually misrepresenting what I said, and I believe that I deserve to be protected.

Order! The hon. member may use the further stages of the Bill to clarify this matter.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion such twisting of words is dishonest.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that expression.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Sir, I want to talk to the hon. member for Orange Grove like a father to an adopted child. He must not be so touchy. We are politicians. He must not be so touchy. I must tell the truth here. I have to. When the hon. member insults the farmers, I shall say so, and I shall say so again, even if he says I am twisting the truth—after all, it is the truth.

I am not insulting the farmers.

He cast a reflection…

Now you are talking rubbish.

… on the S.A. Agricultural Union. He suggested here that the message conveyed to me by the Agricultural Union was not the truth. Now the hon. member is in trouble.

He is nothing of the kind.

I shall now leave him and his insinuation at that.

Leave him for Harry to deal with.

Then the hon. member said—where he got that from, I do not know—that “the control boards and the Government consider the middleman more than the farmer or the consumer.” If that is not correct, he must say so. Did he say that?

Yes.

Now I do not know how the hon. member’s mind works, if it still works. This is a far-fetched statement by the hon. member. He says that the Government and the control boards are there only to ensure that the middleman prospers; the farmer and the consumer can go under for all we care. I really want to appeal to the hon. member. In the future, before making a speech, he really should make sure that he knows what he is talking about. Let him just check his facts first.

His mind is out of gear.

Yes, Sir, something is out of gear when a man says things like that.

I want to assure the hon. members who have participated in the debate that the additional powers being conferred upon the Minister are not intended to hinder or restrict marketing, but are purely aimed at efficiency and rationalization in the marketing system.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1970. The primary object of the Act was to ensure that good agricultural land would be retained for the purpose of producing food for a fast growing population.

There is a desire among so many people for a piece of land where they will be able to forge close ties with farm life and have a more intimate contact with nature. Unfortunately not everyone can afford to acquire a viable unit and to make small plots of land available for those people not only results in their not being able to make a decent living on them, but what is more important, the small units cannot be utilized to their full potential or are sometimes over-utilized. Fortunately this Act has effectively succeeded in putting a complete stop to the fragmentation of agricultural land into non-viable units.

It is true, however, that in the practical implementation of this Act or of any other law certain bottlenecks or loopholes are discovered and that the law has to be adapted so as to improve its practicability. Consequently a few amendments were effected to the Act in 1977 and 1979 and our experience and changing circumstances since then have made it essential for further adaptations to be made in order to simplify the implementation of the Act and to eliminate the problems which are being experienced at the moment.

†Townships are for obvious reasons excluded from the provisions of the Act, but these do not include private townships which are not situated in an area of jurisdiction or a public health area. Although the Act has been applied in this spirit, it is advisable that specific reference is made to this effect to prevent the inadvertent or malicious creation of so-called private townships to change the status of agricultural land. Valuable agricultural land, such as in Natal, may be involved and it is necessary to retain this land for agriculture.

Notwithstanding the fact that certain actions with regard to land are explicitly prohibited under the Act, unless the Minister gives written permission for such action, it occurs from time to time that township developers, for example, sell erven or small holdings to the innocent public before there is any certainty whether the required consent for such development will be granted. To provide for protective measures in cases where consent cannot be given, it is necessary to define what is meant by “sale”, which will have the effect that there is no sale or deed of sale if a suspensive condition has not been complied with.

*In order to prevent applications for subdivision being received from persons with whom it is not possible to negotiate, it is necessary to specify explicitly that only the real owner or his lawful representative may lodge such an application.

It was the intention of the principal Act that the registration of a servitude area with a width not exceeding 15 metres, which forms an integral part of a right of way, aqueduct, pipeline or conducting of electricity, would not be subject to written consent in terms of the Act. If the parties involved in such a right of way, aqueduct, pipeline or conducting of electricity want to include an area for the installation of a waterpump, the width and length of which do not exceed 15 metres, the registrars of deeds cannot, at present, accept such registrations. In order to make such registrations possible, it is now being provided that such servitude areas not exceeding 225 square metres may be registered in terms of the Act without the written consent of the Minister.

The principal Act provides for permits for the subdivision of agricultural land, which were issued under the previous legislation and which are still valid, to be deemed to have been issued by the Minister. However, no appropriate provision has been made when the variation or cancellation of the restrictive conditions of such permits is required. In a recent case a court order had to be obtained in order to effect a variation in the conditions.

In view of the fact that there are quite a number of cases in which conditions benefitting certain people were stipulated by the then authorities dealing with subdivision, it may be expected that the number of requests for the variation or cancellation of such restrictions will increase. I find it necessary, therefore, to amend the Act so as to provide that such restrictions shall now be deemed to have been registered in favour of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. In that way long and expensive court cases can be eliminated.

Since I have to effect certain amendments to the Act, this is also a convenient juncture at which to effect the terminological rectifications necessitated by rationalization.

The Bill was drafted in close collaboration with other interested bodies and enjoys the whole-hearted support of the S.A. Agricultural Union.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say here and now that we on this side of the House support the hon. the Deputy Minister as regards the proposals he has included in this amending Bill. The primary objective of the principal Act is to ensure that good agricultural land will be preserved for the production of foodstuffs for our population. In this respect the legislator has been eminently successful in realizing the primary objective, and we trust that as the legislation is implemented by the courts, the hon. the Deputy Minister, too, will be able to succeed in that goal in future.

While on the topic of agricultural land and the conservation of economically viable agricultural land, I want to request the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he sees his way clear to doing so, just to indicate in his reply to the debate what the size of the minimum permissible divisible agricultural land is at the moment. I suspect that attention is being given to a possible change in the size, which is at present fixed at 25 ha. I should like a reply in this regard from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with the clauses of the Bill, we have no problems. With regard to the proposed amendment of section 1 of the Act, I just want to point out that in terms of the existing wording of the section, it is indeed possible, in Natal in particular, for so-called private towns to be created, towns which then, due to their description, do not fall under the provisions of the Act. This has led to certain good agricultural land, as well as other less good agricultural land, becoming involved in cases in which the provisions of the Act have to a certain extent been circumvented. This is something which is now to be rectified under the new legislation. Of course we have no objection to that.

As the Act reads at present, the concept “sale” was not precisely and clearly defined. Now that concept is being defined to include a suspensive condition. This means that in terms of the new legislation it will no longer be possible to sell agricultural land subject to a condition depending on ministerial approval for the subdivision of the land in question. If such a contract were to be concluded, it would be void. We are in favour of that as well. It is not in the interests of the progress of agriculture. It is to the detriment of the landowner. More important still is that it may often be detrimental to the buyer of that particular land if a contract of sale of that nature were concluded, a contract which would then lapse after certain costs had already been incurred, because ministerial approval had not been obtained. Therefore the people concerned are to a certain extent being protected by this provision. Consequently the measure under discussion meets with our approval in this respect as well.

We now come to the proposed section 4(1)(a)(i), which stipulates that only the registered owner or his proxy may apply for subdivision. I think that this proposal in the legislation ought also to meet with our approval. I assume that entrepreneurs often apply for the subdivision of land without or to a certain extent only without the actual knowledge of the owner, in the hope of making a quick profit at the expense of the actual owner of that land. That possibility is now being precluded in this legislation and it, too, meets with our approval.

We now come to the proposed amendment of section 6A of the principal Act. A servitude for, for example, a pipeline with a maximum width of 15 metres has often been concluded in the past and will often have to be concluded in the future as well. What now happens is that there are from time to time additional improvements which have to be made and this means that an entirely new application has to be made for the registration of that servitude, whereas the proposed improvements are really part of the original servitude as far as its utilization is concerned. In that respect too—provided, of course, that it does not exceed the size laid down in this amendment, viz. 225 square metres—we have no objection. It is meaningful and we support it as well.

For the most part we have no problems with this amending Bill. I just want to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with it in a pleasant manner in comparison with what happened earlier this afternoon and we gladly support him in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, in respect of this legislation on the subdivision of agricultural land I just want to say that I think that it is a piece of legislation which has become imperative in order to counteract the fragmentation of agricultural land. The fragmentation of agricultural land has given rise to many problems, not necessarily for the people who were initially involved in the fragmentation of that land, but in many cases the people who subsequently obtained the land with the idea that it was an economic unit on which they would be able to make a viable living. For that very reason this Act was introduced in an effort to limit such fragmentation of agricultural land into smallholdings. We find that in the process of making money, individuals or companies attempt to find certain loopholes in the legislation in an effort to achieve their goal despite the provisions of the Act. We find that the principal objective of this legislation is to eliminate those loopholes and to counteract possible township development, as has already happened. I do not think that we on this side of the House can emphasize sufficiently the benefits which such legislation entails for us. Accordingly I want to convey the gratitude of the farmers to the department and the ministry in respect of the implementation of the legislation and the manner in which they have dealt with certain cases sympathetically.

It is true that there are cases of units becoming economical as farming land, due to the technological development which is taking place in agriculture. We often find in agriculture that there are cases where a unit as such may not be an economic one which justifies its being cut off from the rest of the land as an independent agricultural unit. However, if certain factors like the availability of water, the correct product or the owner’s own productivity come to the fore, it does at times happen that it is possible that such a unit may after all be regarded as an economic unit and dealt with separately. As far as this is concerned, I believe that the department’s implementation of the Act deserves our special gratitude. There is, of course, also the question of how the Act is to be implemented when it is a matter of the consolidation of such units into economic units.

On examining the various clauses, there is another aspect one could raise. The issue here is the fragmentation of land where, in the first place, the land is in the hands of an individual, or where the land comes into the possession of an individual when he buys it. In the second place there is an aspect which is very difficult to control. It comes to the fore when the right of ownership of such a property is transferred to a company, and this means that the shares are distributed to a number of individuals. What this amounts to is that the right of ownership of the land as a whole is left in the hands of a number of individuals so that one is in actual fact unable to control the subdivision of the land. The cause of this state of affairs lies in the fact that the company is regarded as a corporate body and consequently as an individual. I am aware that as far as this matter is concerned, control is very difficult and that legislation that does make it controllable will not be at all easy to draft. This is an aspect which may create problems in future and I believe that an investigation ought to be stituted in order to determine to what extent the objectives of the legislation are in fact circumvented specifically by the formation of companies.

As far as the Bill as such is concerned, as well as the principle which is at issue in the Second Reading, we on this side of the House express our gratitude to the Opposition for their support in this regard. In the nature of the matter most of the changes being made speak for themselves. If we examine clause 2, we see that as the hon. member for Wynberg quite rightly said, it concerns who may apply. It is, of course, the registered owner or the person who has the legal right to ownership or the proxy of the owner. It also stipulates the form in which such applications should be submitted.

I now come to the question of servitudes under which fall the right of way, aqueducts, pipelines and electricity lines. In my opinion, the amendment now being envisaged is merely a consequential amendment which concerns a substation when an overhead cable is being put up, or a pump station in the building of a canal. One asks oneself to what extent the 225 square metres for this purpose will be adequate for possible sub-or pump stations which may be built. I take it that the position has been duly thrashed out and that the size of 225 square metres will be adequate in view of existing needs, but I can foresee that when larger scale water and electricity distribution is necessary in future, more land will have to be made available.

The other clauses only deal with lesser amendments such as those which arise out of the rationalization of the Public Service.

The Bill has the wholehearted support of those of us on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the suggestions made by the hon. member for Carletonville that the area which is provided for in the amendment in clause 3 of the Bill seems to be somewhat small. It is only 225 sq. metres that the hon. the Deputy Minister was referring to when he said that in respect of a supplementary servitude the addition of an extra piece of ground to provide for pumping stations etc., should be allowable. According to my estimation this works out to be 15 metres square, which is, I believe, the area that a servitude of right of way in width is allowed in terms of the Act, that is an area of 15 metres along a boundary. It seems, therefore, as if the hon. the Deputy Minister has said here: We will just square this off and say that that is the area of ground. I do not believe that that is really going to be adequate. We do, however, support the Bill in general.

We have a few other questions which I would like to put now in view of the fact that we will not have another opportunity to do so between the Committee Stage and the Third Reading. Has the hon. the Deputy Minister any idea as to how many townships in terms of the Town Planning Ordinance of Natal are going to be affected by this particular amendment?

Furthermore, it does seem to me that the Town Planning Ordinance of Natal would provide for a private township which in itself would have divided that particular area of ground into lots etc., for use as a township. Therefore, to presuppose that there would be further subdivision of a township that had been carefully scrutinized by the Provincial Administration of Natal would seem to be superfluous. We cannot understand why it is that the hon. the Deputy Minister finds it necessary to include this exclusion in the definition of agricultural land. In this regard I am in the dark and I believe the House too would like to know what the answer to this is.

The amendment brought about by clause 1 deals with the definition of “sale”. May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if it would be allowable for me to advertise the sale of my farm property, or a portion thereof, subject to the consent of the Minister in terms of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act? If that is the case, I have some difficulty in finding out why this amendment is being included, because it states clearly—

If I sell my property which is subject to the suspensive condition that such sale must receive the approval of the Minister in terms of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, I would be contravening the law. If that is so, I believe that the prohibition is certainly very far-reaching. It means that an application will have to be submitted in terms of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act before any attempt is made by the owner to sell that piece of property. If he is allowed to sell it subject to his obtaining the consent, I believe this would be a normal, natural business relationship and should be left as it is. I maintain that any amendment of these provisions should exclude only suspensive conditions in terms of which the sale is suspensive subject to obtaining the Minister’s consent.

We agree with the other amendments that have been proposed in terms of this Bill. We note that the owner is a person referred to in the Deeds Registries Act as an owner; that is, that he is the registered owner, the trustee, the liquidator and the executor. It gives a fairly large field for people to make applications, but what intrigues me is the fact that the Government has decided to exclude the reference to who shall make application in respect of items under paragraphs (f) and (g) of section 3 of the Act.

Paragraphs (f) and (g) refer, as the hon. the Deputy Minister well knows, to the enlargement of ground by a municipal authority. I think that in order to obtain clarity here, it should be inserted, in this Bill, that the applications to be made in terms of paragraphs (f) and (g) are to be by the authorized parties of that particular public body. We look forward to hearing the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply. I put a few questions to the hon. Deputy Minister in the previous debate, but have received no reply; so I do hope that I get the courtesy of a reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister this time.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to express my sincere gratitude for the support given to this measure by the three hon. members who have participated in this debate, the hon. member for Wynberg, the hon. member for Carletonville and the hon. member for East London North.

The hon. member for Wynberg asked me what the minimum requirements were before subdivision could be granted. I think the hon. member for Carletonville has already given a partial reply to that question. This is a very difficult matter, because from year to year—particularly in the case of certain products—there is a tremendous variation in the ultimate net result of sales. Take just one industry as an example, the angora goat industry. Ten or 12 years ago this industry was experiencing tremendous problems because there was virtually no market for the product. I know that in districts such as Jansenville and Steytlerville a considerable number of units were classified as uneconomical by the department because a farmer was simply unable to make a decent living on his unit. However, there was suddenly a tremendous reversal in the sale and price of this product. For the most part I put this down to a sound control board—to tell the truth, an excellent control board—which did excellent promotion abroad, and then of course to the establishment of an international organization as well. As a result of this there was a sudden reversal in the sale of this product and the vast majority of the units in the districts of Uitenhage, Jansenville and Steytlerville which had previously been classified as uneconomical, suddenly became economic units. Today a farmer who has in the region of 400 or 500 angora goat ewes is able to make an excellent living.

Consequently hon. members will realize that it is an extremely difficult task to define precisely what an economic unit is. In this respect, too, I agree with the hon. member for Carletonville. It depends on the man at the helm. One can give two pieces of land with the same potential to two different people and the one will make a resounding success of his farming practice whereas the other’s effort could be a total failure. The previous hon. Minister of Agriculture always referred to the man at the helm, as hon. members will recall. The department has certain norms. When a subdivision of agricultural land has to take place, a report on the potential of the land is prepared by the Agricultural Technical Services Division of the department. It contains an analysis of the land and of the type of crop that can be cultivated there. The Agricultural Economic and Marketing Division then analyses this report and the net income that such a small farm would be able to produce if it were to be subdivided, etc. All factors are taken into account.

The hon. member for Carletonville has already said that this legislation was being implemented with great circumspection. Perhaps I could give the hon. member a more specific reply in respect of the norm which is being applied. When there is an application for the subdivision of agricultural land, the norm is that the person who is farming on the land must at least be in a position to make a decent living in the long term. Consequently one must take into consideration the trend of the product’s sales, etc., for 10 or 15 years and ensure that the person in question, with his family, of course, will be able to make a decent living on the land. This is done by the Agricultural Economic and Marketing Division. However, this is an extremely difficult matter to define precisely. But the department implements this provision with great circumspection. In addition a great number of representations are received from M.P.s where subdivision may only just be a borderline case, which the department then re-examines. Only a week ago I had such a case not very far from here. Initially the department had rejected the subdivision.

The MP said that the land, in his opinion, could be subdivided. The department then re-examined the land and once again investigated its potential. Furthermore a long-term evaluation was made of the net income which the land was able to produce and subsequently the hon. the Minister decided to approve of the subdivision. Consequently hon. members may rest assured that this measure is being implemented with very great circumspection.

What hon. member made the representations?

It was the hon. member for Paarl. The hon. member for Carletonville also referred to the size of the servitude area referred to in clause 3 of the legislation. Possibly the hon. member for East London North is able to judge whether a servitude area not exceeding 225 square metres—a section 15 metres by 15 metres large—is adequate. In my humble opinion we must be very careful not to allow too much land on which servitudes are registered without the Minister’s approval. The object is that servitudes for normal purposes, such as a right of way, electricity conduction, pipelines, etc., may be registered without the Minister’s approval. However, the department has experienced problems at the Deeds Registry in connection with the size of the land which is set aside for these purposes, and that is why this is now being incorporated in the legislation. I am reluctant to say that more land should be ceded, for as soon as servitudes of unrestricted size are allowed, it is possible to register any servitude and this will be an impediment on that land. In fact, any servitude is an impediment on land unless it brings about an improvement. Most registered servitudes are intended for other owners who are given a right on that land. Consequently it is very dangerous to allow larger servitudes than we are allowing here. It has been shown in practice that this works, except that one has an impediment as far as the area of the servitude is concerned. But I am reluctant to allow any greater area than this without the Minister’s consent. If larger servitudes are required for a specific purpose, the backdoor is still ajar, for the hon. the Minister’s consent may be requested in such cases. This is the reason for the definition in the section in question.

The hon. member for East London North also discussed the clause which refers to the term sale of land. I am not a lawyer and nor do I want to profess to be one. That hon. member knows a great deal more about law than I do. As far as I am concerned, however, it does happen in practice that people offer land for sale in an advertisement which is actually agricultural land—for example beach plots—without ever having thought of applying for the subdivision of the plots or the laying out of a township or even without such bodies or persons having taken cognizance in any way of the provisions of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act. It may happen that people in Johannesburg see in an advertisement that beautiful beach plots are being offered for sale in a township and that they then buy some of the plots. We have had experience of this.

Like Wavecrest.

No, I have nothing to say about Wavecrest. I know nothing about Wavecrest except that I would like to have a plot there. But my point is that people in Johannesburg buy plots and then find they cannot get transfer thereof. That is what is happening, and that is the only reason why the expression “sale” is being defined in the legislation.

*This is the whole reason for the measure. There is no other sinister reason or motive for it. The purpose is solely to prevent people from selling the land, where prescriptions exist on that land, before having applied for a subdivision.

I cannot tell the hon. member how many private townships in Natal are involved, but I can find out and tell the hon. member in a private discussion how many have been involved in the past. But how many will be involved in the future we do not know. We have been experiencing problems in these private townships even though this was not the initial intention of the legislation. The intention of the legislation was not to exclude these private townships from the legislation, and that is why the law advisers have pointed out that in order to include these townships they should be specifically mentioned in the legislation.

I can recall that when this legislation was introduced in Parliament in 1970, we literally sat for days to get the legislation piloted through. I shall never forget that at the time it was the hon. member for Newton Park who led the Opposition’s attack on the legislation. For days we argued about it, and sitting here is the hon. Minister who dealt with the legislation at the time. It is really a source of great satisfaction for me today that we have so much support for these amendments from the Opposition and that at this stage, 11 years after the principal Act was introduced, such a change is discernible on Opposition side and that they too realize that this was very necessary legislation. I want to express my gratitude to them for admitting at this stage that this was sound legislation. The hon. member for Wynberg did so. In this way we have virtually put a complete stop to what was a malpractice in agriculture. Consequently it is a source of great happiness to us that this House is so unanimous on this very important legislation in the agricultural sphere. I should like to express my gratitude for that, for I think it is a step in the right direction, as are the various amendments which have been made from time to time to refine and perfect the principal Act.

I trust I have replied to all the questions. If not, I shall gladly do so.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill provides for the construction of a guaranteed single railway line from a point on the line between Durban and Port Shepstone to a terminal point on the farm known as F.N. 6319.

The Railways and Harbours Board investigated the proposal and recommended the construction of the line. Full particulars of the proposed scheme are contained in the report of the board which has already been tabled.

The need for a railway line arises from the decision of Natal Portland Cement Company (Pty) Ltd. to establish a factory on the farm F.N. 6319 on the southern bank of the Mzimkulwana river near Port Shepstone which would provide Natal with its own plant for the production of cement clinker. The demand for cement in South Africa is such that the timeous provision of additional production capacity will obviously contribute to preventing disruption in the building industry, and the construction of the factory will, in particular, serve to overcome problems concerning cement shortages in the Durban area.

The company has undertaken to finance the construction of the railway line, to build it to departmental standards and, on completion thereof, to hand it over to the Railways, who will then exploit it as a public line under guarantee conditions. The offer is acceptable to the Administration, especially as the Railways will not expend any capital and will not be able physically to undertake the work departmentally at present.

†In terms of the agreement entered into with the Natal Portland Cement Company (Pty) Ltd., the Railways will be indemnified against operating losses during the guarantee period of 20 years. The capital investment in the railway line, including interest, will be refunded in full during this period by the levying of a special surcharge on outgoing traffic, which will also be utilized to defray any losses which may be sustained in the working of the line.

The traffic to be offered by the company is expected to total some 562 000 tons annually, with an anticipated increase to more than one million tons per annum within five years. There is also a possibility that another company will use the line for the conveyance of limestone.

The line, which will be electrified, will be approximately 14,25 km long and will cost an estimated R21 million to construct.

Sir, the hon. member for South Coast subsequently came to me with a certain problem concerning a golf course and requests of the local municipality and environmentalists. I saw that there were indeed certain problems and consequently we decided that an amendment to clause 1 should be introduced, viz. on page 2, in line 7, to omit “between Umtentweni and” and to substitute “from a point on the Durban-Port Shepstone railway line to”. This is to enable those people to come to terms with the people who are concerned about various environmental problems.

*We do not wish to delay the matter, but if they could reach an agreement on the construction of the line and the Portland Cement Company were to pay for the line, we would give our consent and carry on with the work on condition that the routing of the line is in accordance with the wishes of the interested parties, the environmentalists, the golf course owners, etc.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the introductory speech by the hon. the Minister outlining, very correctly, the scope of the work envisaged, and I have also read the report of the Railways and Harbours Board on this particular line. If one read what this says, and only that, one could follow no other course but to approve of the building of this railway line. Certainly the amendment to be moved by the hon. the Minister will help one aspect. But what the hon. the Minister omitted to mention was what effect this railway line and the open-cast mine which will come into operation once the line is built, would have on the environment. The hon. the Minister may know that there is a tremendous row going on from environmentalists who believe that this railway line and the mine could damage one of Natal’s premier beauty spots, viz. Oribi Gorge.

That is a shame.

If one looks at this one realizes that this railway line will be of benefit to South Africa and to the community; so one has very mixed feelings about this sort of thing. There is no doubt that if clinker can be obtained from Natal it will enable the Natal Portland Cement Company to produce cement possibly cheaper, and certainly the cement shortage that has existed in Natal in the past would be alleviated. Also, as the report states, because of its close proximity to Black territories, the proposed plant would also be invaluable in creating additional job opportunities in an area where there is now very little industry. All these are considerations that must be taken into account when one considers the building of a line of this sort. It obviously is a line that could benefit the community. It is also obviously a line that possibly could do enormous damage to the environment. It is not specifically the line that follows the course of the Umzimkulu River up to the confluence between the Umzimkulwana and the Umzimkulu and then goes right up the Umzimkulwana right to the edge of the Natal Parks Board reserve at Oribi Gorge. I am told that there is open-cast mining, a vast open-cast limestone mine, which creates a tremendous amount of dust and it could be very unsightly, and also that there are grave dangers of polluting both the Umzimkulwana and Umzimkulu rivers; also that from Baboon Castle, which is one of the vantage points,—and anybody who knows Oribi Gorge will understand this—one would be able to seehe whole operation, and this would be unsightly and very damaging.

I think I have said enough to indicate that a great deal of thought has to be given before one builds a railway line of this nature, specifically when there is a section of the public which feels very strongly about it. When opposition came to the fore the cement company offered, I understand, to pay for an environmental impact assessment to see what the scheme would do to this particular area. I believe that it is necessary for any major project of this nature to do an environmental impact assessment. When something is planned which is going to do damage to the environment, every aspect of the problem has to be weighed up and assessment made. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House, because I was unable to gather this information from his introductory speech, whether he knows whether the Town and Regional Planning Commission has approved of this scheme. My information is that they have not as yet.

I am also told—my information may be out of date though—that the Natal Provincial Administration has not approved the scheme either. So, although from a railway point of view there is every good reason why, on a guaranteed line of this nature, one should go ahead with construction, and although from many other points of view, such as the supply of cement, job opportunities for the local populace, etc., it should seem desirable to go ahead with it, there are other considerations that must be taken into account. On that basis I believe this House should consider the matter further. Therefore I should like to move as an amendment—

I should urge the hon. the Minister to follow this course of action. I believe it would not take a Select Committee too long to investigate the matter. I believe that towards the end of the year such a Select Committee might be able to make a finding if the promise of the cement company is taken into account immediately and an environmental impact assessment is carried out. I think all of us are aware now of the strength of the conservation lobby which is growing, not only in South Africa but throughout the world.

I think we are also aware of the complaint which comes so often from the public that they are never consulted before a scheme of this nature is undertaken, that authority tends to ride roughshod over the wishes of the local community. I believe we have to pay attention to this. I believe we have to give people the opportunity of giving evidence. I believe that before we make a decision of this nature an environmental impact assessment is an absolute necessity and I should urge the hon. the Minister to give consideration to accepting our amendment which I think is reasonable.

There are other industries, such as the building industry and the cement industry, as well as the tourist industry, which are very important. The tourist industry is a growing industry in Natal. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has ever been to Oribi Gorge. It is certainly some years since I was there, but I remember it as a most impressive and beautiful area. If there is any danger at all of damage being done to the ecology of the area, and of spoiling Oribi Gorge, which is one of our premier tourist attractions, I believe we should think again. I have taken a middle course and suggested we do the reasonable thing by taking a further look at this before making our decision.

Mr. Speaker, before making one or two comments on the Bill now before the House, I should point out that I have some difficulty in establishing exactly what the objections of the hon. member for Orange Grove are. I should like to know whether his basic objection is to the construction of the railway line. Does he believe that would interfere with the environmental conditions, or is it his argument that the mere establishment of an open-cast mine by the Portland Cement Company, who is sponsoring and paying for the construction of the line is in itself an environmental hazard?

If the hon. member’s objection is in regard to the railway line itself, I fail to see it as an environmental hazard, because if that argument should apply it also has to apply to every other type of transport construction through scenic spots in South Africa. It is obviously tantamount to nonsense to argue in that manner. That would mean that no one would ever be enabled to enjoy the scenic pleasures anywhere because no road or railway line would be allowed to be constructed in order to make that possible. Obviously an electrified railway line, such as this one, I believe will not contain any environmental hazard. There will in fact be no steam engine running on that line. We will have electric trains running there, which is a fairly silent means of transport and also a very, very clean type of transport. If the objection of the hon. member is to the actual establishment of the line itself then I must say that his amendment has no validity whatsoever. The hon. member must be aware of the fact that we have certain legislation on our Statute Book which controls the mining industry in particular in regard to the environmental conditions that will apply in an area in which mining is to take place. There are obligations imposed upon all companies involved in open-cast mining in regard to the control of their methods of mining and the restoration of the environment after the area has been exploited. This legislation stands on our Statute Book at the present time. It is legislation which places a particular onus—for the information of the hon. member for Orange Grove—on anybody engaged in open-cast mining.

Having said that, I should like to put one or two questions to the hon. the Minister in regard to this legislation. I want to say that from all aspects it is very favourable to the Railway Administration. I think it is possibly more favourable even than other kinds of agreements of this nature that we have had in the past in regard to guaranteed lines. I mention this in particular, Sir, because as far as the Administration is concerned, it will not be involved in any capital expenditure. This legislation will not impose a further burden upon the constructional abilities of the engineering department of the Railways. This will be the responsibility of the company itself. It is also a very good agreement as far as the Railways are concerned because the Railways are covered in regard to all losses from every possible angle and, if there are any profits, they will accrue to the Railway Administration and not to the company. I say therefore that viewed from all angles this is a particularly favourable agreement as far as the Administration is concerned.

I want to draw attention to one aspect particularly of the agreement embodied in the Bill. In its report, the Railway Board makes it very clear—and I should like to quote it—that—

And I want to draw particular attention to these words—

If one turns to the agreement embodied in the Bill it is very obvious from clauses 3 and 6 of that agreement that the losses that may be sustained in the first instance will be covered by a surcharge which is quoted in the Bill as being initially fixed at 74 cents per 100 kg transported. Because of the use of the word “initially” I accept the fact that in this agreement the Railway’s right to levy a surcharge of 74 cents per 100 kg transported is not being fixed for a period of 20 years. I assume this provision is based on the present estimates of building the line and the capital costs that will be involved.

In terms of clause 6(2)(a) of the agreement it is specifically understood that the costs of the capital invested in the railway by the company shall not be taken into account in determining an operating loss. In this regard, I should like the hon. the Minister to clarify this one point. In assessing capital costs, the cost of the capital is naturally the interest that the company has to pay in respect of the raising of capital and so forth. However, in terms of the policy of the Railway Administration depreciation is also taken into account and there is no mention at all in the agreement of this aspect of the policy of the Administration in regard to levying depreciation charges. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister, when the costs are assessed on a tariff basis in regard to which the surcharge will apply, whether as far as the Railway Administration itself is concerned depreciation costs will figure in the Administration’s accounting procedure in regard to the recovery and repayment of capital to the company concerned. I should be pleased if we could have some clarification in this regard.

There is another provision on which I should like to ask for some clarification from the hon. the Minister. The agreement provides that the Administration may of its own accord consider any further improvements to the line while it is in the course of construction. The Administration can of its own accord, in terms of this agreement, decide that it will have two additional sidings on this line; that will be included in the cost of construction of the line and the company will have to pay.

Mr. Speaker, the clarification that I seek is this: Where it is estimated that the probable cost of constructing the line will be approximately R21 million, as assessed by the board after its investigation, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister, firstly, that there appears to be no provision in the agreement for any escalation of costs in the construction of the line. The company has to meet these costs and not the Railways Administration. Is the cost of R21 million assessed at present day costs? Should the Administration decide to improve the line or provide for extra sidings etc. does the R21 million take that into consideration as well?

It covers all the costs.

But in terms of the Bill the Administration can, while the line is being built, decide that it will have two additional sidings. The estimate of R21 million is based on the building of a line from point A to point B. If the Administration should decide to add two additional sidings or three extra stations, who is going to meet that cost? Must the company automatically pay for it? Will this affect the rate of the surcharge which is initially being fixed at 74c per 100 kg? Will this bring about an escalation of costs? These are points on which I particularly would like some clarification because, as I have said, from all aspects this agreement is very advantageous to the Administration. Inter alia it gives the Administration the full right to operate the line for its own benefit, with no benefit to the company at all. I think these are important points that should be clarified for future guaranteed line agreements that the Railways Administration may wish to embark on. There is a principle here where a private company is meeting the entire capital cost of the whole construction with no disadvantage whatsoever to the Railways Administration and it may be that in the future other public or private companies may wish to embark on a similar activity as this in developing a railway system in South Africa.

The last question was a very stupid one.

Perhaps I did not word it properly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Von Brandis has raised a number of technical points concerning the financing of this guaranteed line, points to which I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply in due course. He has also gone to some lengths to explain to the House that as far as the Railways Administration itself is concerned, this would appear to be a very good deal in that this company is prepared to finance the construction of this railway line and in addition to guarantee any losses which might be incurred during the period of its operation. I should like to tell the hon. member that we have had matters involving a number of such lines coming before this House in recent years, the last being the one—last year, I believe it was—concerning the railway line up to Atlantis. In all these cases the Railways Administration, I believe, has come off best. We in these benches can see the need for the construction of the proposed factory. There is no doubt that at the present time, with the tremendous building boom that we are experiencing, there is a need for a cement factory, especially in Natal. We are fortunate enough to have this deposit which is suitable for the manufacture of cement and clinker. Being a resident of Natal and knowing the South Coast as I do—my constituency stretches from Durban half way down the South Coast—I should like to say that we are very pleased to see that a project of this sort is being mooted because there is a great need for economic development on the South Coast. As the hon. member for Orange Grove said, there is also a great need for more employment opportunities for the people in that area. So I do not think there is any argument, on our part, against a project of this sort being a great need in Natal at the present time.

This brings me to the railway line itself. I know that area quite well and am aware of the problems being experienced on the local road at the present time, problems involving the transportation of sugar cane through the Oribi Gorge and also the transporting of lime from the existing lime factory. Therefore, I am inclined to feel that there is a need for a railway line in that part of the country, because at the present time heavy road vehicles have to travel through very difficult terrain. So if the proposed railway line met with certain conditions, I think it would be of great benefit to all concerned.

There are, however, problems with this railway line, and I should like the hon. the Minister to bear with me. Not only are there problems with the line, but there is also the problem of how this whole project has been launched. Since the hon. the Minister is also, as I am, a farming man who loves our land, our soil and the natural heritage we have, I know that he will feel the same as I do about the need to preserve those things of beauty in our land. As the hon. member for Orange Grove said, this railway line is going to traverse some of the most beautiful scenery in Natal. A brief description of the route is quoted on page 3, paragraph 2, of the report. There one finds a description of the route the railway line will traverse. I ask the hon. the Minister—as the hon. member for Orange Grove has done—whether anybody has stopped to consider what an impact both the mine and the railway line are going to have on this beautiful part of Natal. That is not, however, all there is to it. How much real consideration has been given to the effect that the last four or five kilometres of this line, where it approaches the existing railway line, are going to have on the people who live there and the amenities they enjoy at present? It is because of the impact on this area that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to introduce his amendment, because the last four kilometres are going to affect—as proposed at present—the environment and the lives, not only of the people who live there, but also of those who go to that area to enjoy recreational activities at the Port Shepstone Country Club.

I shall, however, go further with that subject later. What I now want to tell the hon. the Minister is that I believe that this whole project has been carried out in a manner which I can only describe as being most unfortunate. It is matters such as these that cause many people—the ordinary man in the street—to become rather cynical about the way the powers that be conduct their affairs from time to time. There is a history to this line. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is aware of it, although it is written up very briefly in the report. This line was first mooted in 1973. If there is any urgency in this regard, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the line was first mooted eight years ago. It was not mooted as a guaranteed line but as a line to be constructed by the Natal Portland Cement Company. At that time the company applied to the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission for a needs-and-desirability certificate. As is the case when any such application is made, the Natal planning commission, which I consider to be one of the most advanced and most enlightened in the country at the present time, went to the people and asked them what they thought about it. At that time the ratepayers of the Umtentweni Town Board objected strongly to this route. Here I am referring specifically to the last four or five kilometres of the route. They also gave their reasons at that time. Some of these reasons were listed by the hon. member for Orange Grove. Sir, one can imagine how a railway line will affect the lives of those people living in the immediate vicinity. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has ever been to that part of the coast of Natal? I appeal to him to go and have a look and I also appeal to the people in the Railways Administration to go and have a look. I know that members of the Railway Board were there to have a look. This will be a railway line that will cut through a beautiful country club and through an area where there are some lovely homes. Some of these homes belong to retired people who have put their life’s savings into a place on the South Coast where they can seek quietness in the remaining years of their lives and be close to a beautiful golf club. This Bill, as it is presently presented, proposed a railway line to cut straight through the middle of all this. One can imagine the noise. The hon. member has said that it will be an electrified line and so there will not be any steam trains using it. But one will still have the noise of the trains hauling loads initially in excess of half a million tons, so we have been told. I shall deal with development later but potentially more than a million tons of traffic will eventually be transported right through this area.

Right through the middle of the houses!

This is one of the reasons why the people in that area objected to the first application in 1973. But that was not the only reason. They also objected to the harm which might be done to the ecology of the area. From what we hear, there has been no impact study done there despite the scheme’s first rejection way back in 1973. What has happened in the interim? Nothing! Suddenly the whole project has been resuscitated and, may I say, rushed in a manner which indicates to me that all local feeling and opinion has been totally ignored. There has been no negotiation with local property owners. What happened was that the company went to the Railways Administration and said: “Look, we have to build this factory fast. We need the through-put. We need the cement. We will have trouble with the local people. The Railways Administration has powers of expropriation. Put it through as a guaranteed line and use the powers which you have and we will get the railway line as soon as possible.”

That is what has happened, Sir. They are going to apply the Expropriation Act and people feel that their feelings are simply going to be ignored. Also, Mr. Speaker, how was this announced? It was suddenly announced via the Press. This came as a great shock to the local people, especially those serving on the Umtentweni Town Board. They have their own town planning scheme but suddenly they read about this project in the Press. I personally should like to say to the hon. the Minister that from the way this has been presented it is clear that the Railways Administration must be condemned for neglecting to follow the proper procedures in matters of this sort, the sort of thing we do in Natal when our Town and Regional Planning Commission investigates any development in Natal. There should have been more consultation. I want to say that the Railways Administration and the hon. the Minister have ridden roughshod over the feelings and rights of ordinary citizens on the South Coast and especially at Umtentweni. There has been no consultation whatsoever with the Umtentweni town board.

Where is the hon. member for South Coast?

You can leave it to the Minister.

There has been no consultation with the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. The hon. Minister has gone crashing on in a manner I can only describe as scandalous, especially if one considers that this beautiful part of our country is likely to be harmed.

What recent facts have emerged? As a result of Press reports—and I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is aware of this—…

He is too busy selling his dairy herd.

As a result of Press reports, which created a lot of agitation amongst the people, the Natal Portland Cement Company called a meeting of interested parties on 9 January 1981, a matter of two to three weeks ago. Present at that meeting for the first time were representatives of the local authorities, representatives of the Port Shepstone Country Club and the vice-chairman of the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. That was the first time any effort was made to seek local opinion on this. At that meeting the chairman of the Umtentweni town board objected strongly to the failure of the developers to discuss this matter and to negotiate or liaise with the local authorities. He also objected strongly to the fact that he had to learn about it through the Press. Is this the way the NP negotiates, Mr. Speaker? The people there had to read about the project in the Press.

The developers responded by saying that they themselves only received the decision in the last few weeks prior to the meeting. This statement was rejected by the representatives of the town board because a project involving R21 million for a railway line and some R127 million for a cement factory cannot be decided on in two to three weeks. Obviously the details had been worked out in advance. Then suddenly it was sprung on the public.

As I say, there is a lot of cynicism now amongst local people when it comes to the Railways Administration and the hon. the Minister concerned. I want to say that the local people in Umtentweni and the town board members made their position quite clear at that meeting. It is that they welcome the project for the reasons I have already mentioned, viz. employment opportunities, economic development and so on.

Oh, the local people welcome it?

Certainly. They welcome a project that will create industrial and economic development in the area. [Interjections.] They welcome it in principle that such a project should be undertaken.

It will create jobs.

However, they object to the proposed route and they are most concerned about what the railway line and the factory may do to the environment. The hon. member for Von Brandis said we have some railway lines going through very beautiful parts of the country and that, after all, we cannot hold up the progress in South Africa because of the beauty of certain areas, and so on. What he said will appear in his Hansard. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware that a tunnel some 700 metres long is to be built. It will be built through hard rock which will have to be dumped somewhere. Where is this rock going to be dumped? It will probably be dumped in the river.

On the railway line.

The hon. the Minister says it will be dumped on the railway line. Sir, there has been no discussion with local people about this aspect. This is what concerns them. They are concerned that it is going to upset the total ecology in the area.

This is a very poor election speech.

Just wait. We are coming to the best part.

The hon. member for Von Brandis says it is a very good election speech.

A poor one.

I say it is a very good election speech. The hon. member for South Coast, who unfortunately is not here at the moment …

Where is he?

… is going to have to answer for this. I feel for him, because I know that he and I have the same things at heart when it comes to the environment in that area.

The local people have recommended an alternative route which will come out somewhere between Sea Park and Southport, and I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister is going to look at this in great detail. The local people say—and they are well-informed people—that this route is more suitable and that the local conditions are such that, if the last four to five kilometres of railway line are moved further north, it would be a far better scheme altogether, despite the fact that it may cost more because the line will be four to five kilometres longer. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we have to live with these things for a long, long time and that any additional cost must be written off over the years. We must not destroy things of value today for short-term profit, especially things like our national heritage. I believe that a firm of consulting engineers is already investigating this and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will delay any actions until at least they present their report. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister to take cognizance of the objections that have been put up by the Umtentweni Town Board. I want to list them. Firstly, this railway line, especially the last four or five kilometres, is going to be injurious to the amenities presently enjoyed by the people. Secondly, this whole report makes a mockery of the town board’s town planning scheme. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that Parliament passes all sorts of laws. We have already passed some Bills today which will be written into our statute books, such as the required planning, and the need to do things correctly when it comes to the marketing of fresh produce. And then what happens? Suddenly, when someone wants to build an expensive and very valuable factory we get a project like this rushed through Parliament, a project that rides roughshod over all these plans which have been thought out and talked over for hours on end by the people living in the area. The third objection is that the ecology in the river valley will suffer and that there is need for an impact assessment. Fourthly, no impact assessment has been made to date and therefore they object to this scheme. Fifthly, there has been no attempt whatsoever to consult or to liaise with the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission who are the people who eventually must provide the needs-and-desirability certificate. I repeat, the hon. the Minister has totally ignored the feelings and the rights of the people living in the area. He has totally ignored the province of Natal’s planning commission and, as I have said, this planning commission is considered to be one of the most enlightened, advanced and efficient in South Africa today. I say too that the hon. the Minister failed to liaise with the local member of Parliament who, as I said earlier, I regret is not here. I should have loved to hear what he had to say.

He also failed. He is not doing his job.

Despite all this failure to liaise and to negotiate the hon. the Minister now brings this Bill before the House prematurely. I feel that if the railway line goes through as presently planned it is going to create a blot on the South Coast. It is for this reason that we in these benches are going to support the hon. member for Orange Grove. I believe that there should be further investigation into this matter.

In conclusion, I should just like to warn the hon. the Minister who is a new Minister in this portfolio. No doubt he has already read my file. I have received a letter from the hon. the Minister about problems that are being created by a similar project, and I now refer to the Saiccon factory at Umkomaas. It is a project that has created problems that have resulted in a 2-inch thick file, problems which are creating untold misery for the people who live in Umkomaas. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of this. Mr. Speaker, if you will please bear with me I think this matter is relevant here. Many years ago the Saiccon factory was built up-stream from Umkomaas, just as this factory is proposed, and it was constructed with total disregard for the overall planning of access to that factory. As a result of this, today we have trucks transporting timber going into the factory and industrial cellulose laden trucks coming out of the factory at the rate of one every two or three minutes, day and night. I have placed questions on the Order Paper trying to find out when this problem is going to be resolved because there are businessmen who own hotels in the area who cannot let their rooms at night because of the noise. In fact, I wrote to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor offering him free accommodation at an hotel in the area. It was accommodation offered by the owner in the hope that the then hon. the Minister could experience what the local residents and tourists have to experience.

A similar sort of thing could well develop with this proposed project if the hon. the Minister does not go into it further. The point I want to make is this. We have landed ourselves in a problem at Umkomaas which only time can now resolve. Only when the building of the new freeway is completed will people eventually get relief from this major nuisance. In the meantime they have to suffer the traffic, the noise and the inconvenience. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to review the scheme proposed in this Bill. As I have said, we welcome the economic development resulting from the factory. However, we do not welcome, the route which the line is taking, nor the manner in which this matter has been handled.

The hon. member for Von Brandis laughs. I should like to put it to him and also to the hon. the Minister that if someone proposed a similar scheme running through their backyards, their country clubs, their nature reserves, on which people have spent time and energy and efforts for years and years— think of Oribi Gorge for instance—to protect and to preserve, and somebody were to do a similar thing in their areas, would they—the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. the Minister—sit back in their benches—as the hon. member for Von Brandis is now doing—cynically laughing at any opposition to what was happening.

How would the hon. the Minister like a railway line through his dairy? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches are going to vote against this measure and in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. members of the Opposition parties, one realizes that one of them is on his way to Natal—that is the hon. member for Orange Grove—and that another is already in Natal. [Interjections.]

Where is the hon. member for South Coast?

In dealing with a matter of national interest one should forget where one lives. [Interjections.] When one is dealing with the national interest, when there is a dire shortage of cement, when hon. members come and shed tears in this Parliament about the shortage of housing, about the shortage of suitable new roads, about the fact that cement and bricks have to be imported, we should rather forget that a city such as Johannesburg has had to be afflicted with smog for years and years. Do hon. members know that trains run through the centre of Johannesburg?

Goodness gracious.

And is that your reason for …

No, wait a bit now. Those hon. members should rather wait now. A day will come when we shall ask them what is their contribution to the national product.

†I am sure we will ultimately establish that some of those hon. members are living in areas which are really part of the Third World. They are not making any contribution towards the wealth of the country. [Interjections.]

You certainly make your contribution towards pollution.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member for Langlaagte tell us whether he believes that the people of Natal are making no contribution whatsoever towards the national wealth of South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, I shall not say that is a stupid question. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is a friend of mine. [Interjections.] But what a stupid question to ask just before an election.

But that is exactly what the hon. member said.

No. I have never said that. I have said that we all have to make some contribution. As an example I can only refer to Langlaagte, my own constituency. My people there are inhaling more smoke than any other people in this country. [Interjections.]

Yours was a scandalous argument.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about a scandalous argument.

Yes.

We are the people who keep the wheels going. We are not moaners. [Interjections.] We are not moaners; we have been taking it well all these years. Not one of us has ever complained.

*My people have to endure a great deal. When the wind blows from the north, the smoke is so dense that one cannot see one’s hand in front of one’s eyes. Even the houses are filled with smoke.

That is the disgrace of the Government. [Interjections.]

It is true that electric power has been installed there. [Interjections.] However, that only shows what sacrifices people are prepared to make. They do not complain about railway lines being built across their golf courses. Our people do not play golf. [Interjections.] We in Langlaagte are too busy building up the country. [Interjections.] We do not have time for scoring petty political points off one another and quibbling about where the next development has to take place. We are prepared to make sacrifices, and we have already made them. Now, however, hon. members opposite come along with their “town planning schemes”.

†I think that anybody who wants to go into the matter of town planning schemes in Natal really has a shock coming.

Why?

Why?

I shall tell the hon. members why.

All right, tell us why.

Their town planning scheme in Natal could never be brought to finality, not even in 180 years. Do they know that?

180 years?

They do not even know that. [Interjections.] They still do not have a final scheme. How can they then say, here in this House, that the hon. the Minister should deliberate with people who are not even able, after 180 years, to come to a final decision? [Interjections.]

You know what? I have news for you. Natal is not even 180 years old yet. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am back on the rails.

Yes, walk the line.

Mr. Speaker, in this country we have …

What about Oribi Gorge?

I should like the hon. members please to listen carefully now. Those people who think that only certain parts of South Africa and only certain people in the country have to make sacrifices, are making a mistake. Looking at the central area of the Witwatersrand, for example, we note that 42% of the country’s national product is produced in that area. By way of comparison, the population is not so large there. We employ all the available superfluous Black workers there. For example, I can refer hon. members to the enormous amount of work being done at a stone-crushing plant such as the one at Eagle’s Nest.

Eagle’s Nest?

Yes, Eagle’s Nest. It is one of the most beautiful hills in the country. From there, one has one of the finest views of the city of Johannesburg. However, we did not cry and plead that stones should not be quarried there. Every minute of the day, heavy trucks travel through that neighbourhood.

You might as well tell the full story.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow must please not interrupt me while I am dealing with serious matters. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte should rather confine himself to Railway matters.

Mr. Speaker, ever since the hon. member for Hillbrow requested that Coloureds should be permitted to occupy the block of flats next to that railway line after the Whites had been evicted from it, he has really created serious problems for us.

Rather tell us about that … [Interjections.]

At this point, however, I wish to return to the subject of Natal. I concede that the hearts of those who know Umtentweni ought to bleed, and that they will want to do everything in their power to preserve the place. However, that is something that is not always possible to accomplish. It is essential that the factories should continue with production there. As I have already said, the discussions about these railway lines started as far back as 1973. As far as I can remember, we were able to negotiate large overseas contracts for the supply of cement as far back as in 1973. Today we are battling. Today we have to import cement. I wonder whether hon. members realize how the price of cement has increased since 1973. I wonder whether they can tell us what the increase amounts to.

Tell us.

It amounts to more than 50%.

It is more than 200%.

Now just listen to that. If I had said it amounted to 200%, they would have denied it. [Interjections.] Very well then, the increase amounts to 200%. Now those hon. members are still complaining about it and asking that an essential manufacturing service should not be rendered, that one of the products which we need most, should not be manufactured there, merely because it will cause inconvenience to a number of people. [Interjections.]

No, it concerns the disfigurement of the whole environment there.

Is the factory going to reduce the price of cement?

There is one thing those hon. members cannot explain away. It is a simple fact that, particularly since the material we require is close to the sea, we will have to make use of it. I appreciate that. The fact is, however, that the country cannot afford it. Development has to take place where the product or commodity is to be found. Although I feel sorry for the hon. member just before an election, I do have to warn him that on a matter of this nature he should not go and tell the public at large: “It should not be here, it should be elsewhere.” Do not go and announce that we should not have a tunnel here. We have tunnels from Wylies Poort to otherside the Strijdom Tunnel and we do not complain about that. [Interjections.] Consider for example, of the major inconvenience which 90% of the children in the southern suburbs of Johannesburg have to endure as a result of mining in the vicinity. Do we have to stop mining there because 90% of the children in that environment may, at some stage of their life, suffer from croup as a result of the fine dust they inhale? We do not cry about that.

You are not going to get any immigrants in Langlaagte.

We mined the gold in the south, you took it to the north, and we sat with the sand.

*We are prepared to carry on and sacrifice something for the country, but when there are raw materials that can be processed to the benefit of the country, hon. members cannot come with the story that the ecology is supposedly going to be disturbed. The greatest problem faced by America are the people who are obsessed with nature conservation. Those people have preserved America to such an extent that today it lacks creditworthiness in the eyes of the world. That country has been handicapped in the exploitation of its oil resources, the development of its own energy processes and railways, and also as regards 90% of its road structures.

Do you know what you are talking about?

As soon as a man like Andy Capp takes part in a debate, one should know that it is time … [Interjections.]

*The Railway Administration has made a thorough study of this matter, and all interested parties have had an opportunity to peruse it, because the development has in fact been dragging on since 1973. In my opinion, therefore, it is now time for cement, which is something South Africa urgently needs, to be manufactured and transported as rapidly as possible, and the Railways should also do its duty in that respect.

Mr. Speaker, for the past week and a half, the Opposition on that side of the House has accused this side several times of acting in a petty manner for the benefit of the forthcoming election. However, what are they doing in this debate? I feel this is the best evidence of petty election tactics that are being undertaken simply for the sake of personal and local interest. They do not look at the merits of the matter, they do not investigate the matter, but simply pile in because they have heard that a certain group of people are opposed to the proposed development. What they should have done in this case, was to see how the planning could be modified so that all the problems could possibly be eliminated. And this is in fact what the hon. member for South Coast did. He himself undertook an investigation, conducted interviews with the law advisers of the Railways and with the Railway commissioners and long discussions were held on how the route could be changed to cut out possible problems. Unfortunately, the hon. member is not here today, but he asked me to act on his behalf and to support this matter.

There can be little doubt about the fact that there is an urgent need for this railway line. The construction of a cement factory on the South Coast, as has already been mentioned, is going to bring about tremendous development in that area and will create considerable employment opportunities near a homeland. It is going to be an expensive factory. According to present calculations it is going to be a factory that will cost approximately R110 million. Apart from that, at this stage—as the hon. the Minister has already stated—our capacity for the manufacture of cement is far from adequate. By the end of next year extra capacity will be required and therefore it is necessary to act in good time. There is also a strong possibility that another factory could utilize this siding. The Umzimkulu Lime Company may possibly transport approximately 370 000 tons per annum on this line within the next year. Therefore, there can be little doubt that there is a need for this factory and this line.

However, the problem is that the proposed railway line runs through the Umtentweni residential area. This may have an adverse effect on a residential area—as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti correctly alleged. It may also have an adverse effect upon the Umtentweni town planning scheme and it may also influence the ecology of that area. The question of the ecology is an important aspect. The Umzimkulu river and the Umzimkulwana river were used to transport lime in the past. It was transported by boat along these rivers, but unfortunately, due to the silting up of the rivers as a result of erosion, they can no longer be used. That is why it is essential for ecological considerations to be weighed up.

As has already been mentioned, the train line will affect a golf course too. The hon. member for South Coast went into the matter. The company, the Natal Portland Cement Company, has already instructed its civil engineering consultants to see how the route of the railway line can be modified. They already have an alternate route in mind. The alternate route that is being envisaged, is one which will most probably run from Sea Park and then cut into the interior. It may be 4 km longer, but this is a route that could cut out one, or possibly two tunnels and which will also travel across level ground. Another advantage of the alternate route is that it may be able to join up with the Marbach industrial area and could also possibly form part of the mainline to the south.

I reject the petty opposition of the Opposition parties and am pleased to support this measure—on behalf of the hon. member for South Coast too—and I am gratful that the hon. the Minister is going to amend clause 1 in such a way that the possibility of an alternate route can be investigated.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the Opposition whether we must stop the Portland Cement Company from investing R115 million in a factory.

Nobody said that.

What must they do with the cement?

Carry it on their backs.

I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. The hon. member for South Coast came and discussed the matter with me, and the matter was raised at a caucus meeting. I then decided to introduce the amendment printed on the Order Paper. Hon. members, however, keep asking where the hon. member for South Coast is. He told me it was impossible for him to be here today. Not all the Opposition members are here today, so they can just forget about that.

The hon. member for Orange Grove says it is an open-cast mine, mentioning also the Oribi Gorge, the Natal Parks Board, pollution of the river, etc. That is not, however, a matter involving the S.A. Railways. It is solely a matter involving the environmentalists. I can, however, give hon. members the assurance—I place it on record here and now—that the cement manufacturers must clear this mining operation problem with the local authorities before the line will be built. Does that not satisfy the hon. member?

I think the hon. member for Amanzimtoti made a very good political speech, because he played it both ways. He wants the factory, but he does not want the railway line. At the end of his speech, however, he says the local people have an alternative route. The hon. member keeps on saying that we did not consult the local authorities. I do not want to tell him of all the people with whom we consulted. He says that there is a firm of consulting engineers already investigating at the moment. Why are they conducting an investigation? Because we are consenting with those people. I cannot see why the hon. member is fighting me about the railway line. It is a new development in a beautiful part of our country where one wants job opportunities and cheap cement and where there is an alternative route. I am prepared to amend this Bill, to have a clause stating that the line should be decided upon by the local people and the Portland Cement Company. I am talking …

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. the Minister give the House his assurance that the railway line will follow the suggested alternative route?

Mr. Speaker, it all depends on the terms they agree on with the Portland Cement Company. The Railways is a business undertaking today. If one finds a company that is prepared to spend R21 million on a railway line, that company may in 20 years’ time be prepared to hand over the line which it has been running on a profit basis, to the S.A. Railways. That is what I am concerned about. As a South African and as a man of the land I am also concerned about the environmental problems. But I can give the hon. member the assurance that we will ask the Natal Portland Cement Company to investigate alternative routes. Somebody has to give sometime. If they are not prepared to spend another R4,5 million on another 4,5 km, we must reconsider the whole matter. All I am asking the House today is that we should be given the green light to carry on with the line after consultation with the local authorities to see whether we can satisfy them.

Why was that not done before you brought this Bill before the House?

When one is busy with a matter such as this, it is a question of give and take. Must I go back now? When people are in full agreement that they want a factory …

Do it the right way.

When one has a factory one has to find ways and means of transporting the cement from the factory.

What is your hurry?

The hon. member for Von Brandis put a few questions to me. The first question was whether, when they are prepared to build a line and we say that we want two extra sidings, or three extra stations, it will be for the account of the Railways? Of course it will be; that stands to reason. We are going to make money out of that. One cannot expect the Portland Cement Company to build the line and then the Railways come and say they want extra stations on the line …

I am not objecting to that.

The Railways will be making money out of those stations. That is for the account of the Railways. In the tariffs there is built-in provision for depreciation and interest on capital. This has been done so that the line can be paid off over a period of 20 years. I shall give hon. members details of this later.

*I come now to the hon. member for Langlaagte. He raised a few points which I consider to be of particular importance. He said that there were some people who were prepared to make greater sacrifices than others. We are discussing in the House today a case where people even welcome the fact that a company is spending R115 million on a factory to provide employment opportunities and to produce cheap cement. They are in favour of it.

But his golf course is not affected.

I am however at the same time saying that if there is a company which wishes to construct such an asset for South Africa they would be prepared to discuss a golf course with the interested parties. I have nothing against a golf course.

His golf course is not affected.

But I am also in favour of development in a country. One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. There is the question of give and take. All I am asking of hon. members today is that we should not cross swords over this matter. Give us the opportunity, together with this cement factory and the local authorities, to find a satisfactory solution to this issue.

†As the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has said, there is an alternative route. Let us see whether those people can come to an agreement. But the bill will be paid by the Natal Portland Cement Company. It is not for the account of the Railways.

*I shall not force this matter, but I wish to say that to me it is a logical consequence of all our discussions. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North presented the standpoint of the hon. member for South Coast. I do not want us to turn this into a political issue.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether in the designing and planning of this railway line any consideration has been given to the effect it will have on the environment and the amenities of the area?

The task of the Railway Commissioners and the Railway officials was to investigate the building of a railway line. However, when it comes to the question of pollution, it is not for the Railways to investigate that. That falls under a totally different department. Our job is to transport cement. When it comes to pollution, it is for the local people to say they object to the building of a factory, an open-cast mine or anything that can cause pollution. That is what we investigated. If there is, however, an alternative route which is 41/2 km longer and the Natal Portland Cement Company is prepared to pay an extra amount, I am all for it. The ball has now been passed to the people concerned. We are prepared to cooperate because the Natal Portland Cement Company are going to pay the bill. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I hope the Opposition parties will support all the stages of this Bill. We are not fighting each other. I shall answer the hon. member’s question if he will support the Bill in all its stages. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that his amendment is incomplete unless he also amends the agreement with the Portland Cement Company? In the light of that, will it not be better to refer this to a Select Committee for investigation?

With all due respect, Sir, it is not necessary to refer this to a Select Committee. It is really not necessary. If the wording is incorrect, we can go into that. Does the hon. member understand what I mean? It is a pity that we no longer have a Senate, because then I could have said that we would change this in the Senate. [Interjections.] Do the hon. members understand the way my mind is working?

No!

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

There is not much to say about this Bill. The provisions in fact speak for themselves. However, allow me the proverbial word to the wise. In South Africa there is a spontaneous feeling of compassion for our men on the border who are involved in a struggle with terrorists. The public are also making lavish financial contributions towards creating facilities for making the conditions for our men as pleasant as possible. The financial contributions are being paid into the S.A. Defence Force Fund.

The board of the S.A. Defence Force Fund has asked me to amend its objectives and to expand them in such a way that it may provide former members of the Defence Force with facilities and auxiliary services too. The idea is to provide former members with facilities in order to enable them to fit into civil life more easily, for instance to assist a former member without legs to purchase a car or to modify a car so that he can drive it, as well as providing assistance towards their rehabilitation.

I thank hon. members in advance for their support.

Mr. Speaker, we shall certainly gladly support this amending measure. There would appear to be some problem in regard to the wording of this provision because whereas the S.A. Defence Force Fund established under the principal Act of 1978 is in a position to render such aid as its board may deem necessary in so far as members and former members of the S.A. Defence Force are concerned, it does not cover the point in regard to facilities in regard to members and former members. Because this is so, we must spring to the aid of those national servicemen who have so readily sprung to the aid of South Africa, and this we gladly do. We think that the idea of providing facilities in addition to financial aid is of absolute importance in so far as these national servicemen are concerned. In this regard we are dealing with national servicemen who have been wounded or injured whilst in the service of their country. Although these men may no longer be members of the Defence Force, they are still suffering the effects of their injuries and it is incumbent upon us to assist them as far as we possibly can.

One of the most important things referred to by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech is the question of their rehabilitation. The rehabilitation of these men in the transition from army life to civil life is of the utmost importance. We all realized just how important this question of rehabilitation is when we had the case of the 52 American hostages who had been confined in Iran for so long, and when we saw the extent to which the American Government went in order to rehabilitate them and enable them to take their places in American society once again. That is why we feel that if this legislation is going to assist these national servicemen of ours to be rehabilitated so as to enable them to take their rightful places in our society then obviously it is eminently worthy of our support. In this process of rehabilitation, as the hon. the Minister mentioned, provision is now also to be made for the supplying of facilities such as motor-cars. An amputee may require a specially fitted motor-car which does not have any pedals but is electrically operated and completely hand driven. There is no reason why a person who is no longer a member of the Defence Force, but who previously suffered an injury, should not receive assistance. The same applies to other facilities such as electric wheelchairs and specially designed beds that will assist in their rehabilitation. I think the amendment is well-timed, because I understand that this is the United Nations’ Year of the Handicapped, so I think it is just as well for us, in this Parliament, to do our bit towards the rehabilitation of those people. We therefore gladly support the measure before us.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the merits of this Fund-raising Amendment Bill actually need further commendation. This has been dealt with fully by the hon. the Minister, as well as by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I think former members of the Defence Force who may have suffered grievous bodily harm during their national service, are no less entitled to a provident fund for the establishment of similar facilities than serving members are. In fact, many of these former members have paid a very high price for the defence of the Republic of South Africa, and I do not think this can ever be compensated for in terms of rands and cents.

Just one more word about the Defence Force Fund as such. It is obvious that since this legislation is providing for the expansion of the Fund to accommodate the facilities of former members as well, greater pressure is now being exerted on the Fund than before. In spite of the fact that nearly R1 million has been voted from this Fund over the past three years for facilities for national servicemen, but also for welfare assistance to the next of kin of servicemen, it has not come anywhere near providing for all the needs that have been identified. Furthermore, if one takes into account the fact that the Defence Force Fund is entirely dependent upon voluntary contributions, it is clear that the public will have to reach deeper into their pockets for the expansion of this Fund than before. If this does not happen, the expansion of this Fund, to cover former members, is going to lose much of its impact in practice.

I want to express the trust that the public will not be slow to support the expansion of the Defence Force Fund in the lurch, particularly since the passing of this legislation will provide that the Fund applies to former members too, who may have suffered permanent bodily harm. I trust that this amending Bill will enjoy the support of the entire House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randfontein, the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. the Minister indicated the necessity of rectifying what was evidently an omission in the Fund-Raising Act of 1978. It is interesting to note that when the Second Reading debate on that Bill took place—and also subsequently—the issue of fund-raising was a contentious one. The one aspect, however, which was not contentious—in fact, which had the full support of both sides of the House—was the question of the South African Defence Force Fund and the manner in which it was to function. This Bill extends the objects of the South African Defence Force Fund and we in these benches obviously wholeheartedly support this measure. Obviously those facilities that are required by the members are also required by former members, and in some instances those facilities are perhaps more greatly needed by former members, particularly if they have suffered some serious injury or disability in the course of their duties. Therefore the only question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is what effect this amendment might have on the question of expenditure related to the fund. I do, of course, wholeheartedly support the plea by the previous speaker that the public of South Africa should continue its generous support of such a worthy cause as our South African Defence Force Fund. We in these benches have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members for Hillbrow, Randfontein and Umbilo for their contributions and support. I think it has been put very clearly by them that this is a good amendment and that it is in the interest of the young men who are being injured on our borders in particular. The opportunity has now been created to provide them with facilities as well. If one reads the Act, it was in fact the intention of the legislator, as the hon. member for Hillbrow also pointed out, to include the provision earlier in the Act with regard to facilities as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The main objective of this Bill is to make further arrangements with regard to medicines and Scheduled substances: Firstly, advertisements, and secondly, the transfer of certificates of registration and the amendment of such certificates and the medicines register.

The control over medicines for which the Act provides, is necessary for various reasons. One of them is to ensure that trade in medicines takes place in an orderly, responsible manner. For instance, section 20 of the Act prohibits the publication and distribution of false and misleading advertisements for medicines. Advertisements must contain particulars that are prescribed by regulation.

However, it is a moot point whether this prohibition should cover all advertisements of medicines. The law advisors of the State are of the opinion that it should cover only those advertisements that appear in newspapers that are normally read by the general public. This does not include advertisements in magazines and pamphlets, for example. Furthermore there is also some uncertainty as to whether the prohibition should also cover advertisements aimed at medical practitioners, dentists and pharmacists and therefore not for general public consumption.

In order to eliminate this uncertainty, it is being proposed in clause 1 that the definition of “advertisement” be amended and that “public” be defined.

As far as the transfer of certificates of registration is concerned, the Bill is simply aiming at bringing the issuing of certificates of registration into line with the situation in practice. In practice, a certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of Medicines is a valuable document. There is a trade in the certificates. Consequently it happens that a manufacturer who is the holder of a certificate with regard to a medicine sells his right to that medicine to another manufacturer. As the Act reads at present, no account is taken of this. For instance, it does not provide for the transferability of the certificates. The new sections 15A and 15B, for which clause 3 makes provision, will deal with that shortcoming.

The Exchequer has asked for the registration of medicines to be placed on a remunerative basis, i.e. amendments to certificates will be carried out on payment of the prescribed fees. In view of what I have already said, I think this is a reasonable request.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to be able to react for the first time on behalf of this side of the House, to legislation being introduced by the hon. the Minister. It is already late in the day, but nevertheless I want to take the opportunity to tell the hon. the Minister that he and I have travelled a long road together already. We were students at the same university and we completed our internship together at Groote Schuur Hospital. The hon. the Minister will probably still remember that we were also both involved in amateur dramatics at the time. [Interjections.] Hon. members must please just give me a chance. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that on that occasion I was the heroine whilst he—may I say it, Mr. Speaker?—was the rascal or the villain who tried to lead me astray. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister is probably going to try to lead me astray again in the future, but I assure him that just as I did on that occasion I will definitely not allow him to do so. In any event, after that we met once again when I was an oldish registrar and a member of the heart team and the hon. the Minister was the MPC in charge of hospitals. I think he will have to concede me that the little that we did, helped him to reach that bench today. He is competent enough to do so on his own, but nevertheless what happened then, did help him to get into the limelight a little. I also remember how the hon. the Minister once came to watch me doing a heart transplant. He sat there and watched me operate. After that he became Administrator. We did not always get along too well together. There were days when things did not run smoothly, but I have always respected the hon. the Minister for the way in which he acted and the way in which he carried out his work. I should like to thank him for always remaining my friend, because when we meet, we can still speak to one another in a friendly way.

Are you looking for sympathy?

I am not looking for sympathy, because I now want to say that the hon. the Minister has disappointed me a great deal with this amending Bill. I have gone through the amending Bill with a fine toothcomb and have studied it point by point and the hon. the Minister has disappointed me tremendously because I certainly cannot give the amending Bill castor oil. I am very disappointed, because I should have liked to be clever today, but he is simply not giving me the opportunity. As far as I am concerned, the amending Bill is necessary. As the hon. the Minister knows, advertisements stream in and appear all over newspapers. It is very necessary for this to be done correctly so that the public in particular are not misled by false statements. Consequently there is no provision in the amending Bill that we can criticize.

I should just like to say something in connection with related substances. In my opinion, “related substances” has a very wide meaning. In my experience there are many important new types of apparatus, valves, etc., that are put on the market and given to the doctors without adequate control being exercised over them. For instance, a new artificial valve can enter the country from abroad and we will simply put it in. We can require the doctors to obtain more certainty, and I think the hon. the Minister will grant me this, but I wonder whether it is not necessary at this stage for a little more control to be exercised over this type of very essential apparatus that we need, apparatus that falls under these related substances.

Finally I should like to say from this side of the House that we give the amending Bill our full support and I thank the hon. the Minister for it. In future he may know that when we do things for the good of the patient, I on my part will support him wholeheartedly and assist him with everything to the best of my ability, because this is why we are here.