Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to a report which appeared in Die Burger today. I should like to quote from this report, which is supposedly a report on the debate which took place on this Bill here in the House yesterday. I quote—

This is not at all what I said. It is diametrically the opposite of what I said. What I said was that the hon. member for Carletonville was the former leader of the Mieliebroederbond, that he was sponsored for the mealie election by the S.A. Agricultural Union and that he lost the election as a result of that sponsorship.

This report, being totally incorrect and inaccurate, is in fact damaging to myself, and I hope that the newspaper in question will take the necessary action to correct this incorrect report expeditiously. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the first statement I want to make in connection with clause 1 is that the definition of “fresh produce market” is so wide as to include almost every place in South Africa where fresh produce is sold. When we dealt with this legislation yesterday it was very clear to me that the hon. the Minister had not taken the trouble to examine that definition before introducing the legislation. If he had done so he would not have included this clumsy proposal in the legislation under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Wynberg is implying that I came to this House with this definition. But it is the definition in the existing Act. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Wynberg may proceed.

It was only after I had pointed it out to the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Carletonville had agreed with me that the hon. the Minister said he was willing to examine that definition and would come forward with a proposal. I expect the hon. the Minister to suggest such a proposal today. I should very much like to hear how he is to change that definition in order to make this legislation meaningful.

Section 10(1) of the principal Act stipulates that no one may erect a fresh produce market without the Minister’s approval. If this provision is infringed there are penalties stipulated by the Act which may be imposed. I am referring here to Section 36 of the Act. In other words, the Minister is entitled to act even in the existing legislation. Now the hon. the Minister is asking this Parliament for further powers, viz. to prohibit the use of existing markets. However, this House is still awaiting a reply to the question as to which markets the hon. the Minister wants to act against, which markets he has in mind, and the hon. the Minister had the opportunity yesterday of furnishing this House with that reply. Hon. members must realize that if this clause is passed, the hon. the Minister will then be entitled to close any greengrocer, any vegetable market, any vegetable store, however large or small it may be, any place of this nature in South Africa which is already in existence. The hon. the Minister told us that he had come to this House with this motion and that he was supported in it by the S.A. Agricultural Union. I really cannot believe that the S.A. Agricultural Union as well as the producers, the farmers of South Africa, expected the hon. the Minister to ask this House for the powers for which he is asking today. I do not believe that this is what they had in mind. If I am wrong, I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister where I am wrong and I should like evidence that this is in fact what the S.A. Agricultural Union had in mind.

Do hon. members in this House realize that a small greengrocer which is rendering a service to a community may be closed merely because that hon. Minister wishes it? Do hon. members realize that? A corner greengrocer which has rendered a service to a community for years may be summarily closed by this Minister. [Interjections.] The fact that that greengrocer is rendering a service, the fact that he complies with the health regulations of the municipality in question, will not help him at all if the hon. the Minister wishes to act against such a shop. Surely this was not the intention of the S.A. Agricultural Union.

The fact remains that this power which the hon. the Minister envisages is in actual fact going to contribute towards aggravating the problems in the industry, rather than solving them. I should very much like to hear which markets the hon. the Minister wishes to act against. I should also like to hear which organizations are experiencing problems with the existing system, for as the legislation reads at present, it is certainly impossible for us on this side of the House to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the hon. member for Wynberg made certain allegations in respect of this legislation during the Second Reading debate which were taken further by the hon. member for Orange Grove. It is a pity that the hon. member for Wynberg again made certain allegations today which leave a bad taste. He maintains that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries must produce evidence here today that the S.A. Agricultural Union did in fact support a request for the amendment of Section 10 of the principal Act as contained in this clause. What the hon. member really wants to intimate here is that he does not accept the word of the hon. the Minister when he says that those representations were made by the S.A. Agricultural Union. That is obvious. If the hon. member maintains that the hon. the Minister should furnish evidence, that the hon. member would like to see evidence that the S.A. Agricultural Union had in fact supported representations of that nature, surely this is a token of mistrust which he is displaying in the hon. the Minister. I ask him bluntly: What is it but an indication of distrust of the integrity and the word of the hon. the Minister? [Interjections.] The representations of the S.A. Agriculture Union, which were supported by the United Municipal Management, concern an amendment of Section 10 of the principal Act. This is really nothing but a continuation of the implications contained therein.

What does section 10(1) contain? Section 10(1) stipulates that the Minister must grant approval for the erection of such a building. Surely we spelled this out very clearly in the course of the Second Reading debate yesterday, for we said that section 10(1) concerned the erection of the building as such. However, the legislation also contains a penal provision which means that if the building is erected contrary to the wishes of the Minister, a fine of R400 may be imposed. The question of the fine comes into the picture after the building has been erected, occupied and managed, for then the building could have been put into use as a fresh produce market for the purposes of the legislation. The legislation is now merely being extended to state explicitly that if the building is erected despite the provisions of section 10(1) and (2), the Minister has an additional method whereby to implement the provisions of the first two subsections of section 10. This is what the whole matter is about.

However, the hon. member for Wynberg went further by stating a hypothesis concerning the definition of “fresh produce market”. He then alleged that even the greengrocer on the corner could fall under the provision.

Just read what is written there.

In the course of the Second Reading debate yesterday we conceded to the hon. member that the definition of a fresh produce market was widely framed, but I now want to ask a pertinent question. Look, as far as the spirit and implementation of the legislation since it was first placed on the Statute Book is concerned, surely it is true that even the erection of such greengrocers could have been at issue? Surely it is quite logical that this is indeed the case, for if the Minister were now to obtain control of the management of such a building, surely he would in the first place have had control of its erection as well. But, the Minister never intervened in this regard.

The only conclusion we are able to draw is that hon. members now want to make an issue of a sound point they had made pertaining to the definition, for some reason which may be obvious in view of the times we are living in. However, if one examines the spirit and the implementation of the legislation one is struck by the fact that the legislation has never been administered in such a way that there could be grounds for what they are now objecting to.

As far as the spirit and the implementation of the legislation are concerned, I am convinced that both the S.A. Agricultural Union and the Municipal Association have sufficient confidence in the hon. the Minister to say that the Bill must be piloted through so that the necessary provision can be made for all eventualities.

I think we must be satisfied by requesting the hon. the Minister to examine the definition in question so that legislation may be introduced next year with a view to a better definition. But the hon. member was expecting the hon. the Minister to come forward with a new definition of “fresh produce market” at this stage in order to incorporate it in the legislation, but something of that nature would not, I believe, be sound. What is more, it could create even greater problems than those we are facing at present.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to explain to the Committee, especially to that hon. member, exactly what we are talking about.

We know …

Despite the very wide definition of “fresh produce market” which that hon. member admits stands in the existing Act, we do not believe that that hon. Minister should be given the additional power in terms of this Bill. We gave him the opportunity yesterday …

The farmers trust me.

I do not think they do. Yesterday we asked the hon. the Minister what he had in mind with this clause. What sort of premises would he take action against? He gave us an answer and said that if a municipality adjoining a major centre wanted to build a fresh produce market, this would not be in the interest of everybody concerned. But I would like to point out to him that he already has that power. He can already stop the building of such a fresh produce market; so what was he talking about? He still has not explained why he is taking the power …

Tell us how you get along with the S.A. Agricultural Union.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is trying to needle me into a situation where I will discount the integrity of the S.A. Agricultural Union. He knows perfectly well that I did not do so. We would, however, not put it past the hon. the Minister to mislead the S.A. Agricultural Union. What we are in fact saying is that we do not trust the hon. the Minister to have these powers.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Which word. Sir?

That you do not trust the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, it has often been said in the House that we do not trust hon. Ministers with powers that we believe are too wide.

Did the hon. member make a personal insinuation against the hon. the Minister?

No, Sir. I said that I do not believe that any Minister of Agriculture should be given those wide powers. [Interjections.]

Order! I accept the hon. member’s explanation. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, can we again ask the hon. the Minister what he has in mind? We are very suspicious. Why does he come with an amendment that empowers him to take action against existing premises? And he gave himself away yesterday in part of the answer, because when the hon. member for Wynberg asked him what about a number of farmers who open a shop or premises in a controlled area and sell their produce direct to the public, the hon. the Minister asked him this question in return: “Would they have their own stalls?” That seems to imply—I think it is perfectly reasonable for us to infer—that the hon. the Minister intends to take action against the sort of establishment where they do not have their own stalls, where a number of farmers who operate on a co-operative basis go direct to the public and cut out the middleman. Unless the hon. the Minister can tell us something to the contrary, we will continue to believe that and we will vote against this clause, because so far the hon. the Minister has not told us why it has been necessary to bring this clause into being. This Act has been in operation since 1970 without any necessity to introduce this clause and now out of the blue we get this clause. Why, Sir, is what we are asking. What does the hon. the Minister want this power for? If he will level with us we might take a different attitude to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. member for Orange Grove, because he is struggling with two problems. In the first place, he does not have a seat.

Order! The hon. the Minister is digressing a little.

In the second place, the hon. member is having problems with the S.A. Agricultural Union. He has cast a reflection on the integrity of the farmers in the country, and he cannot get away from that. That is his trouble. He told me I could not believe the recommendations of the S.A. Agricultural Union …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Because of the rules of Parliament, I am not in a situation to tell the hon. the Minister that what he is saying is a distortion of the facts …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to word his point of order in that manner. The hon. member must withdraw the word “distortion”.

But, Sir …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word immediately-

I am not quite aware of what you are asking me to do, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw the words “What the hon. the Minister is saying is a distortion of the facts”.

Mr. Chairman, but I specifically refrained from telling the hon. the Minister that he was distorting my words.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to use the word “distort”.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask your advice on this?

You cannot …

Order!

Mr. Chairman, in a situation where incorrect things are being said, things which go further than just a reasonable interpretation of what I said, but possibly with malicious intent, what is my protection? I am not able to get protection from the Chair and I am not able to say what the hon. the Minister is actually doing.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is there not, in what the hon. member said, the innuendo that the hon. the Minister has distorted the facts?

Order! I have already told the hon. member to withdraw those words. The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of your instruction I withdraw those words, but my point of order still remains. I want to know whether I can receive protection from the Chair in this matter.

That is a reflection on the Chair.

Order! The hon. member always gets protection from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I have posed the problem that I am faced with because of a situation that has arisen. I do not know how to deal with this without some straight talking to the hon. Minister. But in accordance with the rules of Parliament I am not allowed to do any straight talking to the hon. Minister.

Order! The hon. member must comply with the rules of debate.

Sir, I have done exactly that, but I have asked for your advice and I have taken a point of order on that.

Order! I asked the hon. member to withdraw those words. That was all.

Sir, I withdrew them completely, but I did say that I would like my point of order to receive your consideration.

Order! The hon. member has to withdraw those words.

But, Sir, I have withdrawn them. I do ask, however, on a point of order, how I, finding myself in this situation, might deal with what the hon. Minister has said. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member can still make another speech in answer to that of the hon. the Minister.

Sir, I believe that it goes further than that.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

As I have said, the hon. member for Orange Grove cast a reflection in Parliament yesterday on the integrity of the S.A. Agricultural Union.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: There might be a gap in the rules of the House in this regard; I do not know, but is it permitted for an hon. member to say that another hon. member cast aspersions on the integrity of someone in South Africa yesterday in the debate?

Order! It has often been said in this Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, would you please allow me to finish my sentence, or will you not allow me to do so?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I am asking for a ruling on whether an hon. member is permitted to do that, since the hon. member has already indicated that he did not, in fact, say that.

He is impugning my integrity.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed, but he must accept the word of the hon. member for Orange Grove that he did not cast a slur on the South African Agricultural Union.

The hon. member for Orange Grove suggested in this House yesterday that the South African Agricultural Union had not furnished me with the correct information.

I did not say that either.

The hon. member questioned whether the information supplied to me by the Agricultural Union was the truth.

He did not.

The hon. member cannot get away from that. The hon. member asked me how I could have accepted that recommendation by the Agricultural Union. The hon. member implied that they were being manipulated by the Broederbond. He connected those two things.

He did not say that either.

The hon. member asked how I knew that what the Agricultural Union said …

You are in fantasy land.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: On many occasions have I told that hon. Minister that I did not say what he is accusing me of saying. I believe that he is questioning my integrity if he continues to follow the same line of argument, and on that basis I believe that I deserve protection.

Order! The Standing Rules and Orders of the House lay down explicitly that a member’s explanation of a speech made in the House must be accepted. The hon. member gave an explanation of a speech that was made in the House, and that explanation must be accepted. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I do not wish to cast any reflection on the hon. member’s integrity. But there are other people who are not in this House to defend themselves, namely the members of the S.A. Agricultural Union. The hon. member asked how I could accept the recommendations of the S.A. Agricultural Union. He wanted to know how I knew whether they were representative of the farmers. He cast a reflection on the integrity of the S.A. Agricultural Union. He asked me how I could believe them. I am calling the entire House to witness. We can go and read in Hansard what he said. I want to say unequivocally that I shall not allow an hon. member to make use of the privilege of the House to cast a reflection on and to question the bona fides of organized agriculture. Who does the hon. member think he is?

Opinions have nothing to do with bona fides.

Was he right about the Meat Board, or not?

This side of the House will not allow a reflection to be cast on the S.A. Agricultural Union and its subsidiaries. To prove how reprehensible the hon. member’s standpoint is, I want to remind hon. members of the fact that the hon. member asked yesterday how we knew whether they had consulted the vegetable farmers. That is so, is it not? He asked how we knew whether they had consulted the fresh produce committee of the S.A. Agricultural Union. The hon. member was suggesting that the S.A. Agricultural Union had simply said: “It is in order. It is all right”; that no one had been consulted; that it had been done quite haphazardly. That is what the hon. member for Orange Grove said about the farmers in this House. I am going to make mincemeat out of him for having said that. I am going to keep on doing so and I am going to make mincemeat out of his party as well. Now his party is opposed to the Second Reading of the Bill. They condone what he said here. I want the hon. member for Wynberg, who is the farmers’ spokesman on his side, to apologize to the farmers.

You are the one who should apologize.

The hon. member should apologize to the farmers for what a member of his party said in this House. He will have to go and explain to the farmers why they are opposing these measures in this House. He will have to explain that to the farmers. I do not know how many farmers there are in Wynberg. Sir, if a party’s chief spokesman for the farmers is based in Wynberg, the sun is really setting on that party.

To put the matter in perspective, I have here a letter from the S.A. Agricultural Union. The letter is addressed to the chairman of the Commission for Fresh Produce. The hon. member must listen carefully now. He may find it difficult, but he must try to understand it too. The letter says—

Well, what do you say now?

The letter is signed by the Director of the S.A. Agricultural Union.

Apologize to the farmers.

Sir, then the hon. member for Orange Grove suggests that I have come to this House with a lot of ill-considered proposals. We also consulted the United Municipal Executive of South Africa. I want to know whether he wishes to suggest that they did not know what it was all about either and that they would not tell me the truth either. He will have to decide about that for himself. They also wrote to me—

The hon. member should just think a little longer before he speaks. I want to warn him today that he must leave the farmers alone, because they are going to hurt him.

Do not start that nonsense. I have not been attacking the farmers. I have been attacking you.

The hon. member is someone who has a great deal to say about the farmers day after day. Sir, I would almost say that the farmers will deal with him before breakfast.

The hon. member for Wynberg spoke about the definition in the Act, as if he were saying something entirely new. But I said yesterday that the definition was not quite satisfactory. I told him that I would look at that definition again. In fact, we are looking at the entire Act. As this whole matter developes, we look at the Act. After all, I gave the undertaking to the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Carletonville that I would look at the definition and would phrase it in such a way that there will be no dispute around that definition.

We really must bear in mind what we are concerned with. We are concerned with a fresh produce market. Because the PFP is in trouble with the farmers because they have questioned the credibility of the S.A. Agricultural Union in this House—the hon. member for Orange Grove questioned the credibility of the Agricultural Union …

He did not do that.

Now they are trying to detract attention from that by drawing all sorts of red herrings across the trail.

You are not very fond of the truth.

The hon. members are now alleging that I shall close almost every greengrocer’s shop on every corner by calling it a market.

I did not say so.

The hon. member asked what I was going to close. The hon. member for Wynberg asked: “Is he now going to close all the greengrocer’s shops? What is he going to close down?” It seems to me that the hon. member suspects me of suffering from some kind of closing disease. I know the hon. member is suffering from election fever, but we are concerned here with fresh produce markets. If the definition is not quite clear to him, I invite him to go to the market with me one morning so that he may see what a market looks like, what is done there and what the motives are for the erection of a market.

I wonder whether you have ever been to a market.

I want to tell the hon. member that the Act and the actions of the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets are not intended to harm or inconvenience the public or the farmers. On the contrary, all our actions are aimed at achieving order, rationalization, convenience, etc., in marketing. The hon. member sets up his own straw dolls and then he knocks them down and says: “See how I have saved you.”

I want to tell the hon. member that he need not be concerned. If I close down one place and he does not like it, he can come and see me about it. I doubt whether he will come back to this place, but in that case he can always write me a letter. Or he can come and discuss the matter with me. If he is no longer a member of the House of Assembly, he can nevertheless come and see me. I want to give him the assurance that I shall not close anything which stands in his way.

Mr. Chairman, I now rise for, I think, the third time to suggest that the hon. the Minister should tell us what he has in mind. He has avoided the question and refused to answer it. He goes off on flights of fancy, which descend even to the gutter, if I may say so, saying that I am attacking …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw the word “gutter”. He has accused this side of the House of attacking the farmers’ integrity, which is totally untrue. It is absolutely untrue. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that what he has been saying will not wash. He is throwing up a smoke-screen. He is trying to hide something. I should like to know what he wants to hide, and we shall not vote in favour of this measure unless he admits his motivation for bringing this Bill before the House, because we have not heard it. What sort of premise does he intend to close? This is a simple question. Let us have an answer to it.

Mr. Chairman, I now want to make a suggestion. I can send my Second Reading speech and a further explanation to the hon. member. If he has a friend who can read, he could ask his friend to read and explain it to him further.

Very funny.

I do not think I should waste much more of this House’s time in trying to tell that hon. member what I want to close down. Section 10 of the principal Act reads as follows—

1. (1) No person shall erect a fresh produce market in a controlled area without the prior written approval of the Minister.
2. (2) The Minister shall give his approval under subsection (1) only after consultation with the commission.

That is the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets. All we are adding there is the following—

1. (3) The Minister may prohibit the owner of a fresh produce market erected in a controlled area without the prior written approval of the Minister, from using or permitting the use of such market as a fresh produce market.

I really cannot take up more of the time of this House in trying to drive home this concept to the hon. member for Orange Grove. Suffice it to say that any person of reasonable intelligence ought to know exactly what is going on here. I shall let that suffice.

Mr. Chairman, I come back to that question. The hon. member quoted from the principal Act as well as from the proposed amendment. But that was not the point. The point was: There must surely be a reason why this legislation has been brought to this House for approval, and in view of that there must be premises against which the hon. the Minister is going to act once this legislation has been passed. Otherwise the legislation is meaningless. I am asking the hon. the Minister to be honest enough to tell this House which premises he is going to act against, where they are and the reason for doing so. Otherwise this side of the House will want to know why the right is being given to that hon. Minister to act against any existing market or any future market. This is simply asking too much. We should please like a reply.

Mr. Chairman, we have had this experience with a certain place where a market was erected.

Name the place.

Phoenix in Durban. Was the hon. member not aware of that? The point is that the Minister may refuse his approval for the erection of a market, but he had no powers if such a person were to continue to operate that market, other than to prosecute him. He could not close the market. We then condoned this particular market at Phoenix and said that the market could remain in business. But now we are seeking powers if such cases were to repeat themselves. If such cases were to repeat themselves, the hon. the Minister would have the power to prohibit that person or body from carrying on the business of a fresh produce market there. That power I now have, but I need that power in the interests of the fresh produce industry, in the interests of the rationalization of marketing. That is the point. I should like the Opposition, if they want to, to vote against this measure. In that case they would be undermining the objectives of rationalization and orderly marketing in South Africa. In that case they would be acting to oppose the recommendations of the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets and the best interests of the producer, the consumer and the S.A. Agricultural Union. If hon. members do not want to support this measure, I shall know how to report back to those people who do have an interest in this. That includes the producer and the consumer.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me …

Order! The hon. member has already spoken three times.

Mr. Speaker, just before the debate was adjourned yesterday, the hon. member for Parktown said that he was very disappointed in this legislation. However, his disappointment was due to the fact that he had nothing to oppose. Then he went on to regale hon. members with some anecdotes from his student days, which were in fact very interesting.

With the two basic amendments which the hon. the Minister is moving to the Bill under discussion, I feel that a further contribution is being made in the first place towards control measures for trying to guarantee the sensible, safe application of medicines. It is in fact very important to remove misleading or false claims, that have no scientific basis, from data that is provided to the public. This can lead, amongst other things, to the unfair exploitation of troublesome situations that man experiences. Think for instance, Mr. Speaker, of the poor overweight man or woman who grasps unsuccessfully at every quack remedy to achieve that longed for slim figure. I see that a cream is even being advertised for this purpose these days. I wonder how many hon. overweight members of this House have not already been misled by misleading advertisements in this regard. Similarly there are other human disorders that I do not want to dwell upon now, but which lend themselves to possible exploitation, which should be guarded against.

However, I also want to point out a much more serious consequence of misleading, incorrect information regarding the way in which medicines work and this is when it is distributed in the form of advertisements or in medical journals or in pamphlet form to members of the medical profession themselves. Advertisements, of which between 45 and 75 appear in an average periodical, do of course make the publication of such medical journals possible, by means of which valuable information is circulated to the profession. It is praiseworthy, it is necessary and many medical practitioners really need to read these advertisements. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the average medical practitioner is practically entirely dependent on the advertising campaign of the pharmaceutical companies for obtaining the correct information, the correct functioning, the side-effects and even the possible addictive effects of remedies and the consequences of side-effects of these remedies, particularly the latest ones. In other words, many medical practitioners are in fact entirely dependent upon, and lean heavily upon information that they derive from the advertising media.

In this regard I should like to point out the important role that the Medicines Control Council plays here, in the capacity of a watch dog, as it were. I want to do this with reference to an example of the very important, essential work which this control council carries out. A year or so ago, a remedy appeared on the market and it was advertised. However, the following was brought to the attention of the profession in a circular to medical practitioners and in an advertisement that was placed in a journal, under the heading “Misleading advertisement”—

Then the name of the remedy is given—

This is an honest, fair action on the part of this company that did everything in its power to rectify a bona fide mistake. However, there may also be those who are unwilling to do so and consequently it is necessary for the Medicines Control Council to have the necessary legal powers to deal with a situation of this nature.

I want to make just one more remark with regard to advertisements in medical journals in particular. One of the most common undesired effects of medicines is undoubtedly skin reactions. I should like to quote what a researcher has to say in this regard. He reports as follows—

Then he gives a score of medicines that may cause undesirable skin reactions. I want to tell you, Sir, that I have not yet seen an advertisement that draws the public’s attention to the fact that this may possibly happen. One can understand this quite easily, because just as a cigarette company is not willing or not keen to draw attention to the dangers attached to smoking by means of its advertisements, these companies will not be too keen to mention the adverse effects of a remedy in their advertisement either. Nevertheless, I think it is necessary for side-effects and potential dangers in particular to be mentioned in the advertisements which are printed in scientific journals. I hope that the companies concerned will agree to this voluntarily so that those dangers can at least be brought to the attention of the people who prescribe those medicines, i.e. the medical practitioners of the country.

In clause 3 the method of amending an entry in the medicines register is described. What is particularly important, is the addition of section 15B in which provision is being made for a registration certificate to be transferred to someone else with the approval of the council. It sometimes happens that the manufacturing rights of medicines are sold by one company to another. As the legislation reads at present, such a company ought in fact to follow the long route and the administrative red tape of a first registration, but this can take from three to nine months, whilst in actual fact no basic change is taking place in the manufacture or the composition of such a medicine. In my opinion, it is a question of wasting time and manpower; therefore we are also pleased to support this important amendment to the Bill.

With these few words, therefore, I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the well-informed advice and suggestions of the hon. member for Pietersburg who is someone who knows exactly what he is talking about when he speaks on these matters in the House. I think we all support the comments which he has made when referring to the danger of misleading advertisements.

I should also like to deal with the question of the change in definition suggested in clause 1. I went back to the original Bill which of course appeared before the House in 1965. The original definition in that Bill appears to be very much the definition as we find it today, although the legislation has been amended on seven previous occasions during the last 17 years.

In 1965, however, we did not have television in this country. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister—perhaps he can just indicate over the floor of the House— whether it is his understanding of the wording of the definition of “advertisement” in the original Act that television advertising is covered. Although the definition refers to “written, pictorial, visual or other descriptive matter”, it must be borne in mind that the definition applies to newspapers and publications. I just wonder whether the hon. the Minister could indicate by way of a nod or a shake of the head whether it is his understanding that the definition also refers to television advertising.

I do not think so.

I am pleased to hear that because I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that in the interim television with advertisements has been introduced. He will no doubt be aware of the fact that certain proprietary medicines, not scheduled medicines—one must make that difference—are advertised on television. I am hoping that his department has control over the content of those advertisements because we know what a tremendous impact the television media has on people.

I can speak much more freely in this House on these matters because I no longer have any connection with pharmacy. Hon. members will know that I had a connection over 15 years with various aspects of pharmacy which I now no longer have. I know that when certain proprietary medicines were advertised on TV their sales increased in percentages that are absolutely mind-boggling, to the extent that certain stockists would say: “I used to keep three only of item X on the shelf, and after the spot had been on TV twice, I was ordering 60 cases from the wholesaler.” From three to 720 is an enormous increase. I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware of this, and I would therefore ask him to indicate to us in his reply to this debate whether he and his staff are keeping an eye on advertisements of this nature appearing on TV and watching for any potential misleading advertisement or any unnecessary advertising which may encourage people to take medicine that they do not strictly need. It might sound strange, but it is a known fact throughout the world that advertising can encourage people to believe that they are suffering from symptoms which, had they not seen the advertisement, they may not have been conscious of. I believe that we must therefore look at this whole aspect of advertising of any form of medicine on TV carefully. I am not suggesting a ban, but I am suggesting that we should look at it carefully, and it would be interesting to hear the hon. the Minister’s comments on this particular point.

In clause 1 we also have a new definition of “public”. I will discuss this further in the Committee Stage, but I do think that the definition that is inserted in lines 26 to 29 is perhaps badly phrased. I do not like the phraseology of the definition, and perhaps we could discuss the wording in the Committee Stage, because I think it is a rather loose and untidy definition.

Clause 3 embodies the major change in this Bill and has been dealt with by previous hon. members. But I would like to raise two points when we come to a discussion of the registration of medicines. I hope you will just bear with me briefly, Mr. Chairman, if you should consider that they do not fall totally within the orbit of the clause. As I have indicated, the original legislation is 17 years old, and a great many things have happened in the field of medicine during that period. So, when a Bill of this nature is introduced, it is important that we should consider changes that may have taken place in trends of medicine in the intervening time, because when legislation has been amended seven or eight times, one assumes that one is keeping track with trends in medicine and one hopes that in future amendments, suggestions made in the House can be considered for what they are worth.

I would like to comment very briefly on two aspects of the registration of drugs. Firstly, there are companies that do original research and the patents on their original research expired. There are companies of significant resources and there are well-known companies who then use those patents to market their own generic equivalents. I have no complaints against those well-founded companies who produce a good product that is acceptable to the market and which to all intents and purposes has the same bio-availability of drug in the body as the original substance. But there is still a trend among what we call the pirate manufacturers, small concerns—one might even refer to them as backyard concerns— who market what to all intents and purposes is the same product, but does not provide the same amount of drug in the body under the given circumstances that the original drug does. Unfortunately, with costs being what they are, and with such large quantities of these drugs being used, this usually means that in large institutions, like the Army and provincial hospitals, tenders go out for the cheapest drugs. I am not going to delay the House with experiences—which I have documented—of the cheaper drug definitely not being the equivalent of the more expensive drug. I am sure, however, that the hon. the Minister knows of these cases, and I should like it to be brought to his attention that I think that this is a practice that must be looked at carefully. Not only should the drug appear to be the same, but I think we should also ask that the council look further into the question of the bio-availability of these drug equivalents. That is the first point I want to make.

This brings me to the second point. While praising the work of the council that considers the applications for registration, let me also ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to see whether applications for registration cannot be speeded up. I think the previous speaker referred to the time lag involved in some cases. I have knowledge of time lags that extend far beyond nine months, which was what I understood the hon. member for Pietersburg to have referred to. Where one is dealing with a science—which medicine is—that is evolving so rapidly, I think it is necessary for decisions to be taken as quickly as is possible, bearing in mind the consequences of an over-hasty decision. What I am asking for is some sort of a balance between keeping someone waiting too long for a decision and an over-hasty decision. None of us needs to talk about the disastrous results of the thalidomide drug. One would never wish that kind of disaster to take place as a result of an over-hasty decision. I am just asking, however, whether the procedural stages could not be looked at with a view to shortening the time that it takes for a decision to be reached.

There is one further point I should like to make in regard to clause 3. Section 17 of the Act makes provision for notification of registration or cancellation of registration to be published in the Gazette. I am just wondering whether, with the inclusion of the proposed new section 15A and 15B, it is not in fact necessary to have a consequential amendment to section 17 so that there will be notification of registration or cancellation or change of registration in the Gazette. It was just a point that came to mind when I was reading through the Bill before us. Possibly the hon. the Minister could comment on this and tell us whether he regards it as being valid. Otherwise we have no problem with the legislation. We believe that the changes that are being requested are common sense changes that we can support. We shall consequently be voting for the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the fact that the hon. member for Berea felt a little unhappy about some choices of wording in some of the definitions in the legislation before us, he is supporting this amending Bill, for which we are very grateful. It is very clear to me—and I want to compliment him on this—that the hon. member definitely does his homework well. However, I wonder whether he will also do his homework for the election as well. When we talk about amending health legislation, there is one matter about which there must not be any doubt. The legal draftsmen and legislators must have clarity on one matter, and this is that we must give certainty to the people outside regarding the medicines that they deal with or use—whether it is the medical practitioner, or the man who has to swallow the pill. I think it is only right for the patient to know whether the saying “a pill a day keeps the doctor away” is true or not. I think the patient must know that the quality of the pill is of the very best.

This brings one to the question of advertisements. The hon. member for Pietersburg correctly pointed out that the medical practitioner and the lay public, the patients, are largely dependent on what is advertised. I feel it is necessary for the definition in the Act to be so clear that in this regard too there will be certainty so that no one can become the victim of malpractices in that regard.

Furthermore it is very clear to us, and we must understand this, that large sums of money are invested in the product which ultimately finds its way to the pharmacist’s shelf. This money has been invested in the form of research into and manufacture of the product and the advertising and distribution thereof. This is also the reason why the manufacturer, having registered the medicine, should be able to negotiate his registration. It is also correct that it is stated clearly in the Act that such a registration will have monetary value. It happens from time to time that the trade name of the remedy is changed for some reason or other. It is laid down in the Bill that fees can be levied for the change of a name or a trade name. With these few words, Sir, I am pleased to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the members who have taken part in the debate. It was interesting to listen to the technical knowledge of some of the members. I think the short speeches they made were an indication of the importance of amending this Act from time to time. This Act was first piloted through this House in 1965 and has been amended a number of times since. However, I am one who believes that an Act that appears in the Statute Book and is never amended is a dead Act. One never gets to find out whether there are any mistakes in it.

Over the past 10 years the medicine industry has undergone unprecedented growth. We made a start with our own production in this country, due to companies devoting their energies to the manufacture of medicine. The more progress there is in an industry like the medicine industry, the more control is required, even though one does not like it. One needs controls, for example the Medicines Control Council, as well as analysis, fixing, the SABS etc. All those people and bodies have to help ensure that there are no malpractices in the manufacture of medicine.

I wish to reply briefly to the various speakers. I wish to thank the hon. member for Parktown for his very friendly words. The hon. members who were in the House at the time will recall that he said yesterday that as housemen we took part in a play together. He took the role of the heroine, while I was the villain. I must make one thing clear here and now, and that is that he was the heroine because we had no women students to perform that role. There was nothing wrong with me, with him or with anyone else who took part in the play. We are quite normal, even though we differ as far as politics are concerned. Perhaps that could be described as an abnormality. For the rest there is nothing wrong with us. I want to thank him for his kind words.

†I just hope that when one gets such praise from the Opposition, it will not mean the kiss of death in the long run.

*I want to thank the hon. member for his support. I attended to the appeals he made for valves and hips to be regarded as “related substances”. I shall take another look at this matter. He gave an interesting interpretation, and we shall certainly take the matter further. I thank him and his party for the support they have afforded this important amendment.

As far as the hon. member for Pietersburg is concerned, I am actually second in the queue to congratulate him. The hon. member for Berea has already said what I wanted to say, namely that it is a pleasure to listen to someone who speaks with authority and from experience. The fact that the hon. member for Berea has already said this, attests to the fact that this is not merely a case of party congratulations, but that it reflects the general feeling of the hon. members who take an interest in this legislation. The hon. member for Pietersburg raised some very interesting points, for example, the question of misleading advertisements in medical journals. I think it is very important that one should consider that, too, because the medical practitioner is often dependent on the information he obtains. He is not always intimately acquainted with every product that appears. Therefore all he can do is listen, and the advertisements may provide more information. In that way,, something which is not really worthwhile can begin to appear in prescriptions. We shall have to take a very careful look at that matter.

The hon. member also made the very important point that one will have to see to it that where certain remedies are used, it is very clearly indicated if certain reactions occur in the use of these remedies. Sometimes people already suffer from allergies. Even if one is entirely a layman, one usually knows that certain things cause one to come out in a rash. For example, one hears about children who come out in a rash after eating tomatoes. This occurs regularly. Therefore if one knows that a certain remedy affects one, then I think it is important that it be indicated whether the use of a certain remedy can lead to a reaction. I think this ought to be made clear.

The hon. member also referred to the Medicines Control Council and the important work they do. In this connection I want to support what he said. South Africa is one of the countries that can be proud of its Medicines Control Council. They operate in an extremely wide field which widens every year. I do not know exactly what the solution is, but I think that nowadays we are being flooded with remedies of all kinds that sometimes do not differ very much from one another. It is the work of the control council to see to it that certain tasks are carried out in order to exercise control—hence its name. I can give the hon. member the assurance that not only do we appreciate the work of the control council, but if at any stage it appears necessary to introduce additional legislation to facilitate their task, we shall not hesitate to do so, because in fact one is thereby ensuring that the public is protected. I shall come back to that in a moment when I react to the speech by the hon. member for Rustenburg. I want to thank the hon. member for Pietersburg for his very illuminating speech. It is a pity he did not have more time to inform us further about the matters he discussed.

†The hon. member for Berea raised an interesting point in connection with television. He asked me to reply to his suggestion. I want to point out to him that the definition in the Act of 1965 is nearly word for word the same. In the definition of “advertisement” there, I think almost everything is covered. I quote from the definitions—

I think that also covers television. However, the hon. member made an interesting point, and I am quite sure the department will keep an eye on television. It will possibly be of interest for the department to contact SABC-TV and request them to vet applications for such advertisements. That could be done before the advertisements appear on television, because if the advertisement has been shown, it has been shown. One cannot then withdraw it and say it should not have appeared. I think it is something which I shall ask the department to look into in order to see what the practicability is of vetting this type of advertisement, because I must say it is the impact of television which worries me. If there should be an advertisement which gives certain medicines a popularity that is above their value, I think we are treading on dangerous ground.

The question of the exploration of patents is also an important question. Where a similar drug can be prescribed, or another firm makes that drug, it is important that there should be some form of qualitative analysis, and I think the Medicines Control Council only registers products where it has actually been shown they are not only safe but also effective and that there has been quality control. I know for a fact that the provincial administration has its own specific organization doing quality control to make sure that they get what they are asking for when they ask for some drug or its equivalent. I think there is effective control over drugs where another firm starts making them when the patent has expired.

The hon. member also referred to the change in registration, and I think that what he covered in his speech is obviously based not only on experience, but also on knowledge and an intricate study of the Act. I should therefore like to thank him very much for his contribution. I think these are the main points covered by the hon. member.

*I think the hon. member for Rustenburg made a very important statement at the outset of his speech when he said that the legal draftsman and the legislator should ensure that everyone be afforded security, and that includes the medical practitioners, the pharmacist and also—and this is very important—the person taking the pill or the medicine. I think that that is exactly what this legislation, in all its facets, seeks to do. The amendments we are effecting are certainly also aimed purely at effecting improvements in an effort to provide that security.

†The hon. member said that a pill a day keeps the doctor away, but then there is also the other adage: Two pills a day might take the patient away. One has to be very careful, and that depends on the prescriber and not only on the person who is taking the tablets.

The hon. member for Berea also mentioned that registration should be speeded up. That is one point on which I did not touch a moment ago. It is the intention to review the Act in the near future, and this matter will then receive further attention. Section 17(a) refers to the person who applied for registration. Clause 5 amends this provision, and a further amendment is not considered necessary at this stage. I think one must accept the fact that we must first give this amendment a chance, but the whole Act, as I have just mentioned, is being reviewed, because I think from time to time one will have to keep an eye on the Act. We shall therefore look at this question of registration. However, I must say one thing about the registration of medicine in this country, and that is that it is done with the greatest practical speed. It cannot be speeded up without possibly sacrificing safety and quality control. There are two things that we must look at: Safety and quality control on the one hand and speed on the other hand. As far as we know there is no country in the world that carries out registration at a faster rate with the same amount of thoroughness and accuracy as we do. In fact, in some countries it takes years for a product to be registered by their equivalents of the Medicines Control Council. Therefore we have to do two things. Firstly, we have to expedite matters in order to try to prevent firms producing medicine from delaying the use of the medicine for too long and, secondly, we also have to make very sure that both quality control and safety control are strictly enforced in order to protect the patient.

*I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members who have taken part in the debate. It has been an interesting debate. Even hon. members who are not members of the study group and members who do not have such an intense interest in medicine are now thoroughly convinced that they can go home in safety and drink their medicine, if they need it, without fear. They need not fear that they may no longer be with us tomorrow or the day after.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for replying to the points I raised during Second Reading.

I want to come back now to the definition of “public”, which we find in the proposed new section 1(1)(e). I believe that the definition as it appears in the Bill could be misleading. It could even be inaccurate. I should like to point out why I think that is the case. I quote the definition as it stands—

In this definition we first find “public” and then reference is made to “a section of the public”. When one talks about the public, including a section of the public, it is fine if one is not dealing with health professionals, because nobody who is not a health professional can dispense. The definition goes on to refer to a section of the public concerned in dispensing. A member of the public cannot dispense. That is the point I want to make. Only a health professional can dispense. I hope the hon. the Minister gets the point I am trying to make. What I would like to suggest is that we should rephrase this definition of “public”. I do not have any hard and fast definition in mind, but I have two suggestions. Firstly, where we use the preposition “in”, I should suggest that the preposition used in the Afrikaans text is more correct. There the preposition is “met”. I think the English text should be changed to “concerned with” instead “concerned in”. I suggest this merely from the point of view of correctness. Nevertheless I do believe that a better definition of “public” could well be the following one, which I shall move formally if the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept it—

and then the rest of the definition as it stands now. I believe it is self-explanatory. It does not alter the intention of the legislation, but I do believe it makes it more lucid. I therefore move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I understand the problem of the hon. member as far as his reading of the clause is concerned. I feel, however, that one has to accept the terminology of the law advisers in this regard. As far as my knowledge goes, a pharmacist is also a member of the public and “a section of the public” is also a legal term. I feel that we should leave it as it is. I am rather concerned about accepting an amendment which has not been fully investigated from a legal point of view. I also feel that the phraseology as it exists does cover everyone. I think the hon. member will accept the fact that a pharmacist is also a member of the public. There is nothing different about him. Because I am hesitant in regard to the legal implications of this amendment, I regret I cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I take the point made by the hon. the Minister. I am not a lawyer but I feel that there is a certain amount of merit in the change that I have suggested. I am prepared to accept the decision of the hon. the Minister and consequently withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

I should like to put it to him that we should still omit the word “in” in line 26 and substitute the word “with”. One does not have the public concerned “in” manufacturing but “with” manufacturing. I should therefore like to move formally as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I said just now that I was not a lawyer. I am also not a linguist. However, since I had to reject the hon. member’s first amendment, I am prepared to accept this one. Time will tell whether I am more of a linguist than a jurist. I accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal briefly with this clause because it relates to a suggestion I made to the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate. Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I should just like to point out to the hon. the Minister that what we are inserting here in the form of the proposed new sections 15A and 15B are provisions to which I have no objection. I do not wish to change any of the wording that appears in these provisions. However, the point I wish to make because I believe it is a valid one is that if these proposed new provisions are agreed to I believe that a consequential amendment will be required to section 17 of the principal Act, which deals with the question of registration or the cancellation of the registration that is referred to here. Only a minor textual change in the legislation will be required and I believe that section 17 should then read that it relates to the notification of registration or cancellation or change in registration in the Gazette. Section 17 deals with the publishing in the Gazette of the details relating to the registration or cancellation of registration of a drug. In clause 3 we are providing for the possibility of a change in registration. What I am saying is that we should consequentially change the method by which notice of that change is given in the Gazette.

I do not know whether I have made it absolutely clear to the hon. the Minister, but it is about as clear as I can make it. To me it seems that in the original legislation textual amendments to section 17 are required. Those amendments should be in line with what we are passing now and of which I am in favour. I am not suggesting any changes to clause 3 as it is printed.

Mr. Chairman, I think that when the hon. member reads clause 3, he should also read clause 5 as printed. I think he will agree, after having read clause 5, that the matter is settled.

Nevertheless, if the hon. member still has problems, I give him the undertaking that, as we are in the process of reviewing the legislation, we shall look at such problems. As far as I can see, however, clause 5 does cover the problem at present. If it does not do so, then we shall review the situation and have the necessary amendments included in future legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The smoke control measures for which the Atmospheric Pollution Act makes provision, are applicable only to zones that have been declared smoke-controlled areas.

However, for several years already, only the so called smokeless stove is being manufactured in and imported to the Republic. Therefore, we have now reached the stage where this type of stove is chiefly being sold even in areas that have not been declared smoke-controlled areas. Therefore, it will be a good thing if we now confirm this situation by prohibiting the manufacture and import of the conventional stove entirely. The amendment for which clause 3 provides, puts this into effect.

Nevertheless, it must be noted that this prohibition applies to the manufacture and import of domestic stoves only. If dealers still have conventional stoves in stock, they may continue to sell them. In the same way, persons who own conventional stoves, can continue to use them in areas that are not subject to control.

The effective combating of atmospheric pollution in residential areas is very tied up with the proper functioning of the smokeless stove. Durability tests were carried out by the S.A. Fuel Research Institute under the guidance of a sub-committee of the National Advisory Committee on Atmospheric Pollution, on a number of makes of these stoves after complaints had been received from people who had been using them. It was discovered that the materials in the combustion chamber were in fact of poor quality in most cases. This was also confirmed by the S.A.B.S., which tests stoves with a view to granting them the S.A.B.S. mark. Nor are some stoves durable enough to withstand the rough handling to which they are subjected daily for acceptable periods, nor do they comply in all respects with minimum standards for generating heat. In order to make the smokeless stove acceptable to the consumer and in this way to succeed in combating smoke pollution, the functioning and durability of some stoves will have to be improved. This can be brought about only by laying down stricter requirements. Clauses 4 and 8 make provision for this.

Mine dumps and slimes dams are most probably amongst the largest manmade structures in the world today. They are also an important source of dust and as such they are an inconvenience to many people and industries. The responsibility of combating this dust problem, rests of course, in the first place upon the person or body that put the mine dumps there. However, if we take into the account the fact that mining was begun in the Transvaal almost a century ago, it is easy to understand that many people who were responsible for this, are deceased, or in the case of companies, are no longer in existence today. In this case there is a specific regulation in terms of section 30(1), in terms of which the State carries 80% of the costs, the local authority 15% and the owner 5%. However, it is a moot point who the “owner” is because the definition of “owner” in section 30(5) is not clear. Thus far, the view has been that the holder of the surface and mineral rights of the ground upon which the mine dump is situated, is an “owner” for the application of the Act. These holders were held responsible in the past too. However, it now appears that over the years this view has not tallied with the words in the Act. As the definition concerned reads at the moment, it seems as if it is only the persons who were holders of the rights concerned when the mine dump was formed there, who are responsible. Subsequent holders are not legally responsible. Clause 6 will rectify this matter. If it is taken into account that a mine dump can be a valuable asset as a result of the new methods of reclamation, it is not unreasonable for these holders of rights to be held responsible too. Nevertheless, there is adequate authorization in the Act for exempting persons who cannot pay the cost or in cases where it is impractical or unfair for them to pay the costs. This Bill was published in the Gazette for general comment and as a result of the comment that was received, certain amendments have been made.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. the Minister once again from this side of the House for a Bill which is necessary and important and will also help to keep our country cleaner and healthier.

†When one travels from Cape Town to the north of our country, one can see one of the worst effects of air pollution. It is my privilege to live on the shores of the Atlantic at Clifton and when I come to work on a windless morning when the Cape Doctor is not doing his work, I find our beautiful Cape Town covered with smoke and fog. If one flies, especially in a small aeroplane, and gets within 50 km of Johannesburg these days, one will enter a wall of smoke. When we travel along the Witbank area and see what the coalmines and power stations are doing, we will understand exactly what the hon. the Minister is doing, although this legislation is aimed more at the smaller polluter.

The purpose of this Bill is mainly to tighten up existing legislation and help our country to be free of smoke, dust and sand.

Although we support the hon. the Minister, I think we have to protect him from the hon. members on his side of the House. I should like to give hon. members an example of how bad the air and sand pollution is in the constituency of Langlaagte, as we heard yesterday. The hon. member for Langlaagte yesterday gave us a good example of how bad pollution can get. Pollution not only makes our country look dirty and smoky, but it also affects the health of the country’s inhabitants. I am sure that when the hon. the Minister introduced the relevant amendment for the greater control of smoke and sand he was thinking of the health of our people because, as we all know, smoke and sand can result in serious lung conditions. I am thinking of conditions such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and eventually death as a result of such serious pollution. We hear that-this is happening in Langlaagte.

All over the Rand, right into the centre of Parktown.

Forget about Parktown. We are now dealing with Langlaagte. I want the hon. the Minister to know what kind of thing is taking place in Langlaagte and I want him to send his health officers there. Something dreadful is going on at Langlaagte.

You are right.

I should like to know what the hon. member for Langlaagte has tried to do about it, because it seems to me that he is quite satisfied with it. In Hansard he says we should think, for example, of the great discomfort suffered by 90% of the children—the children, of all people!—in the southern parts of Johannesburg as a result of mining activities in the vicinity. The question is asked whether we should cease mining activities there because 90% of the children in the environment suffer from croup at some stage of their lives because of the fine dust they inhale. The hon. the Minister is asked whether he is satisfied with what is going on at Langlaagte. It is said that we are prepared to go on sacrificing something for our country, but when there are raw materials that can be processed to the advantage of the country, hon. members cannot come along with these stories about the ecology that is going to be disturbed. That is what the hon. member said. However, he is not referring only to sand. There is smoke at Langlaagte as well.

†He says his people there are inhaling more smoke than any other people in this country. I wonder whether he has ever been to Soweto. I shall, however, give him the benefit of the doubt.

*He says the people there have much to endure. When the north wind is not blowing, he says, the smoke is so dense that one cannot see one’s hand before one’s eyes. Even the houses are filled with smoke.

†I feel that this is one of the reasons why this Bill is of vital importance in protecting our people, our cities, our suburbs—even Langlaagte—against this kind of pollution. I do not know, of course, if one can protect it against the member of Parliament that it has. That, I am afraid, is a different type of pollution. I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House whether they are opposed to nature conservation. I am asking this in order to protect the hon. the Minister, because according to the hon. member for Langlaagte the other side of the House is opposed to nature conservation.

*He says in Hansard—and I believe that this is his opinion, for that is why he says it—that the greatest problem America has to contend with is the people who are obsessed with nature conservation. He says “obsessed” with nature conservation. That is actually the word he used. If he believes that they are obsessed with nature conservation in America, I suppose he believes that they are obsessed with nature conservation in South Africa as well. Am I right or wrong? Those hon. members must please vote against this Bill, because the hon. the Minister is also obsessed with nature conservation now.

I shall reply to you shortly.

He says those people have conserved America to such an extent that it has no credibility in the eyes of the world today. Such an extravagant statement! He says that as a result of nature conservation America has no credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world. We can say that of South Africa as well, because we have conservationists here. Because the hon. the Minister wants to pilot through this Bill, we are going to lose some of our credibility in the world. I want to know whether that is what we may take the hon. member to have said. He went on to say—

He did not use the words “nature conservationists”, but I may take it that he had them in mind—

What has that got to do with the Act?

It is nature conservation. These are substances …

Pollution and nature conservation are two different things.

Give him a chance; at least he is a Barnard!

Order!

Having listened to the hon. member’s speech yesterday, I am no longer so sure whether I am proud of that.

Sir, let us forget about nature conservation and confine ourselves to the hon. the Minister’s Bill. But we know the diseases and problems there are at Langlaagte and we are aware of the hon. member’s opposition to nature conservation. The hon. member also said—

He had forgotten about Moaner van Heerden. He repeated—

Sir, we on this side of the House do not mind being “moaners” about air pollution. We are quite willing to help prevent our country from going up in smoke. Langlaagte may disappear into the smoky hollows, but we do not mind fighting for what is right in our country. We do not mind working for the health of our people and supporting the hon. the Minister in this legislation.

†As an example of how wrong the hon. member for Langlaagte is, I should like to say that in Parktown, the constituency where I come from, air pollution and conservation are regarded as being of the greatest importance. No tree is allowed to be cut down unless we know why it is being done.

There have been complaints about chimneys. I should like to point to a group of chimneys that the hon. the Minister should look at. These are the chimneys of our hospitals. If one works at the Red Cross Hospital, one finds that the air is being polluted by these chimneys every day. The sisters complain …

That is the smoke that is blown towards Langlaagte!

Order! The hon. member has made enough interjections now.

That hon. member is suffering from pollution of the brain.

Order! There is no need for the hon. member to enlarge on my rulings.

I beg your pardon, Sir.

At the Red Cross Hospital there are complaints about the smoke emanating from the chimneys. The nurses get holes in their stockings and the finish of cars is damaged. At the Parktown General Hospital people complain about the smoke coming from the hospital chimneys. If we make laws to protect the health of the people of our country, those of us who provide health services should also set an example.

†Sir, on this side of the House we should like to support the hon. the Minister in this amendment Bill. Unlike the hon. members on his side of the House, especially the hon. member for Langlaagte, we are concerned about air pollution in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, one must have a knowledge of a subject before one talks about it and makes blunders. As a namesake of mine, I want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that one must leave certain people alone at the start of one’s political career.

Not stupid people.

That is correct. One must not taunt stupid people; one must put up with them. However, one must leave the clever ones alone. One important matter is that one must have an equilibrium in politics. When one talks about conservation, one must also look at it.

Let us look, for instance, at the mine dump that I spoke about. The hon. member will have seen that the mine dumps are covered in grass today. The man who originally started this in the municipality, was S. P. Barnard. However, let us look at what people said should be done with the sand in years gone by. They said that it had to be worked back underground into the mines. Therefore the opening of the mine had to be filled with sand which had to be put down into the mine. An Act of 1886 made provision for this. The great, important man who said this, was Paul Kruger—I think the hon. member has heard about him already. However, in those times it was true that people died of hunger, sooner than of smoke. The hon. member, who is a doctor, knows that one can absorb smoke into one’s system for 30 years without dying but that if one does not eat anything for 50 days, one dies. This is the difference. People had to be provided with food and that is why certain things that are not usually accepted in practice, were permitted in order to produce food.

I think the hon. member will agree with me that one should not actually handle manure because it contains germs. Nevertheless, every farmer uses it on his fields to produce food.

There are no germs in it.

The hon. member says it does not contain any germs. [Interjections.] I agree that he may know more about that matter than I do, but it is extremely important that food is produced in the first place, something to fill people’s stomachs. After that, all other considerations can be taken into account.

It is true that Langlaagte is covered by a cloud of smoke. This comes from Soweto. The wind blows it in from Soweto. If the people of Parktown and Houghton who employ the people of Soweto, would pay them a little more, those people could afford smokeless stoves, as the Government requires by law today. The people in those constituencies, however, do not do so. Now the municipalities must lay down regulations for them.

There are things that are very essential for man, but the most important are food and work for keeping one alive. Where there are commodities that must be processed, one must adapt oneself. People like those in the Langlaagte constituency put service first. Their approach is: South Africa first.

They are ashamed of you.

The hon. member must not try to speak on their behalf now. The Progs cannot speak on behalf of anyone in this country. I can assure him of that. They cannot speak on behalf of anyone and I shall speak for my nation, because I know what their situation is. What is necessary in any country, is for the natural resources to be developed.

[Inaudible.]

I am not talking about the hon. lady. I think she has already … No, I cannot say that. Perhaps the hon. member does not understand my line of thought, but I shall not blame her for that.

In this country there are people who always want to preserve things, but never on their own land and never at their own expense. The people who want to preserve the Sandy Bays will not give a rand towards buying out Sandy Bay. These are the people that I am complaining about. The people who want the old buildings to be preserved do not want to do anything either. If one asks them for R50 to preserve an old building, they will not give you anything. They are prepared to take one’s building and preserve it for the nation, a building for which one may have paid a very large sum of money, but that contribution to prove where their love lies, never comes from their own pocket.

If we look at the Bill that is before us today, we see of course that it is an important one. Of course, it is essential to have this Act. Health in this country is of such a high standard that these things must be checked from time to time and it is ensured by way of legislation that people do not become a burden to others. If one looks at the factory laws, one sees that wind direction is taken into account. It is also taken into account when towns are established. When one establishes a town, one takes into account from which direction the wind blows as well as where it blows to. Flood waters, air currents, etc., are all factors that one takes into account. However, as the hon. member said, when it comes to the necessity of certain developments, no one can tell me that the development of the Johannesburg gold mines and the fact that that dust is pulverized is not a danger to thousands of miners.

You do not understand.

No, wait, do not say I do not understand. Your “boys” do not work here. How many underground miners are there who have phthisis? Does the hon. member not want any miners to go underground? Does the hon. member know how many miners die of phthisis every year? They do not die because of smoke from outside nor because of dust. The voters of Langlaagte work down below in the mines and their lungs harden. Why do we do this? To make money available so that other people can live the good life. These are the facts of life. I said in my speech yesterday, and I say it again today, that where sacrifices must sometimes be made, we make them within the limits of the Act, without having an adverse effect on people’s health, if possible. There are many things that are preferable, but not always possible. One example of this is the mines. It will be a joyous day for me when not a single one of my voters will ever have to work underground again and within a certain time forfeit his health due to a shortage of light and air in order to make this country rich and prosperous.

Not a single hon. member of the PFP has had a single good word to say about miners in the past year. Miners who are faced with all these problems …

Order! The hon. member really is digressing too far from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when a fire breaks out, down below in a mine, the problem of the smoke is much more serious than in the case of a fire elsewhere. This is also one of the many things that we must bear in mind. I am pleased to support the legislation under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I can barely see the Bill for the smoke. As a matter of fact I am busy brushing the fall-out from the mines off my Order Paper at the moment! I shall do my best not to follow the line taken by the hon. member for Langlaagte. I also want to assure the hon. member for Parktown that I do not want to get caught in the cross-fire between the two hon. Barnards. It seems as though I am rather strategically placed to keep them apart in this House.

And you are so small! [Interjections.]

There is one point in the speech of the hon. member for Langlaagte which, I believe, has to be answered. I hope you will allow me to answer it, Mr. Speaker. He referred to the smoke which comes from Soweto into Langlaagte. Well, apart from suggesting that people pay their domestics more so that they might buy smokeless stoves, I should like to put it to the hon. member for Langlaagte that we are only now seeing the electrification of one of the biggest cities in Africa. That is a blot on the history of his Government and his Cabinet.

The Johannesburg city council is to be blamed for that. [Interjections.]

The Johannesburg city council is the guilty party. [Interjections.]

It is a blot on this Government that a city the size of Soweto should have developed in this country over a period of 30 years and only now is being electrified.

Who controlled the Johannesburg City Council throughout all these years?

I have made my point, Mr. Speaker. I have merely replied to an argument that was advanced earlier. I shall leave it at that, however. I give it to the hon. member for his consideration.

There is a tremendous contradiction between the Bill we are debating now and the practice in South Africa. I have taken the trouble to look at the original legislation. It is an excellent, a very comprehensive and a very far-sighted piece of legislation, considering that it went through this House in 1965. There is one thing that worries me, however. That is that however perfect legislation may be—and the fact that we are amending it today shows that we can improve it—it is useless if the intention of that legislation is not carried through and enforced. Over the years it has been quite clear that however well intentioned that legislation is, this Government has lacked the manpower and perhaps, I believe, the purpose to ensure that the intention of the legislation was carried out. One only has to go to any city in this country in winter to see the pall of smog and smoke that hangs over it. Then one realizes that we are not preventing to anywhere near the extent to which we should the pollution of our atmosphere.

I believe that lung diseases of whatever kind in this country also rank very high among all the Western countries of the world. Only a few days ago the hon. the Minister supplied me with figures that show that every day in South Africa seven people die of lung cancer. We know that there are reasons other than just air pollution. I should like to point out, however, that this is a shocking record for a country such as South Africa. To think that there could possibly be seven people dying of lung cancer every day. From this we can see that there is a great deal that should be done in order to improve the smoke and smog situation in our cities.

I have tried to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to this matter in the past. I did not wait for this legislation to come up. The hon. the Minister will remember that last year I put a question to him asking how many permanent and temporary officers had been detailed for air-pollution control in our eight major cities. The answer was that in the eight major cities in this country there were only 25 permanent air-pollution control officers and that no temporary officers had been appointed at all. I do not know whether the situation has changed drastically since May 1980 but it strikes me that with the number of large and small industries that we have, 25 inspectors are totally inadequate for the amount of work that requires to be done. I believe, Sir, that it is important, if one has the necessary legislation, also to have the necessary manpower to see to it that that legislation is complied with. There is no point in having the stringent controls that are written into this very fine piece of legislation that we are amending if one does not have the simple manpower to check on the industries concerned so as to ensure that the provisions of that legislation are not contravened.

There is another very important point that I should like to make. We have been discussing pollution that one can see but there are many substances that find their way into our atmosphere that one cannot see. There is one which I believe has been increasing insidiously in our atmosphere, particularly in our cities over the past few years—it is covered by this legislation and that is why I am mentioning it—and that is the amount of lead in the atmosphere in our cities. In this regard too I asked the hon. the Minister in 1979 what studies had been undertaken to ascertain the concentration of lead in human tissue. It would appear that very little research has been done in this regard in this country. I was reading recently about the problems dealing with the accumulation of lead in human tissue, the problems that this fact is causing in other countries in the Western World. The author of this article which appeared to me to be presented fairly moderately—it certainly was not an extreme publication—indicated that recent tests in Cape Town—he did not use the word “survey”—had indicated that the level of lead in the atmosphere in Cape Town was fast approaching that of some of the cities of America which are known to have level of lead in their atmospheres that are far too high for human safety. I believe that these matters are all inter-related. We need good legislation. We need to take cognizance of unseen pollution such as lead in the atmosphere and I believe that we have to have sufficient personnel to ensure that there is no contravention of the provisions of the legislation. There is no point in our discussing these matters here and passing a law which appears to be logical and to be what is best for South Africa and then discovering that the legislation has been as it were pigeonholed and that although provisions exist for people to be fined and penalized for breaking the law, they are not being prosecuted simply because there is insufficient staff to deal with these matters adequately.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in this regard. We will support him when he introduces legislation of this nature into this House. We are going to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill because we have very few misgivings about it. We would perhaps like the hon. the Minister to give us a little more information in regard to the provisions of clause 6. Apart from that, the intention which the hon. the Minister has in mind in introducing legislation of this nature is something that we will support. However, I want to emphasize the fact that it is no good having good intentions if the intentions contained in the legislation cannot be enforced and properly enforced in respect of those people who are obviously contravening many of the provisions with which they should comply.

Mr. Speaker, I think the reference by the hon. member for Berea to the electrification of Soweto in connection with this legislation was absolutely inappropriate. I also think it is a pity that one finds that the Opposition parties do not notice the positive action and results that have already been achieved by the Department of Health with regard to the degree of atmospheric pollution in our cities. We are all aware of the fact that there are still problems. There is still a great deal of smoke. However, if they would take the trouble to investigate, they would realize that the position on the Witwatersrand, for instance, has improved remarkably as far as the control of atmospheric pollution is concerned. I think one must at least notice that positive action on the part of the Department of Health with regard to smoke pollution and dust pollution on the Witwatersrand.

With the amendments that the hon. the Minister is moving here, viz. the minimum requirements with regard to the standards and functioning of the so-called smokeless stove as laid down in clauses 4 and 8, with regard to these smoke-controlled areas, and the further arrangement with regard to who should accept the responsibility for mine dumps on disused mines as determined in clause 6, I feel that another important milestone is being achieved in our never-ending struggle against atmospheric pollution, a problem that causes the developing and developed industrial countries in particular headaches. More than 20 years ago, when he signed the Air Quality Act of America, President Johnson said the following—

This sombre picture that the President painted, was not in fact realized, because here we are in 1981 today. However, the warning still applies, possibly somewhere in the future, if we do not achieve success with effective measure like these.

The ordinary domestic stove remains one of the most important sources of atmospheric pollution. Tremendous costs are incurred these days in order to combat pollution caused by domestic equipment. The so-called smokeless stove has practically been perfected now. Since this stove is an expensive article in every household and since such a stove simply regresses into an ordinary coal stove if certain strategic components of such a stove fuse, it is absolutely essential to lay down certain minimum requirements of standards and functioning in the Act.

Experience has shown us that among the population groups of large cities, like those in the USA and Europe which have a high atmospheric pollution index, the incidence of certain diseases is definitely showing a tendency to increase. An intensive research study that spanned a period of five years, proves that there is a noticeable difference in the incidence of certain diseases in people who live in relatively clean air in the rural areas in comparison with those who live in industrial areas with a great deal of pollution. For instance, they discovered that chronic bronchitis occurs 25 times more often in children in such areas than in rural areas, whilst chronic bronchitis occurs 19 times more often in adults. Even high blood pressure occurs 4,4 times more often. Coronary heart diseases occur 4 times more often. Stomach and duodenal ulcers occur 2,5 times more often. Enlarged tonsils in children occur 11,4 times more often in polluted areas than in the rural areas.

Although the domestic sector is responsible for a mere 10% of South Africa’s total coal consumption, the domestic sector is an important factor in pollution because such pollution occurs in the midst of residential areas and because incomplete combustion in the conventional coal stove causes more serious pollution. That is why this amendment to the Act is to be welcomed because it will bring about more effective treatment of the problem.

In clause 6, section 30 of the principal Act is being amended in such a way that the concept of “owner of a mine dump” is being enlarged so that the legal responsibility can also be placed upon anyone who has prospecting rights on such a mine dump or any other rights such as the right to use the surface of the land. It is absolutely essential for the private sector too to contribute towards combating the high cost of planting vegetation on old mine dumps in order to bring about an effective combating of dust. For instance, on the Witwatersrand alone there are approximately 6 800 ha of slimes dams and approximately 1 200 sand hills. The unit of the Chamber of Mines responsible for planting grass is reclaiming large areas. In 1970 the cost was R2 000 per ha but in 1975 it had already increased to R5 300 per ha. It is calculated that the total cost of this project will amount to more than R50 million.

It has in fact required a great deal of experimental and research work ultimately to find an effective method of establishing vegetation on the mine dumps. As a result of the high acid content, little organic material and many other factors, it is also necessary to carry out maintenance work for many years ahead in the form of applying agricultural lime and fertilizer for instance before a natural self-maintaining plant cycle is really established. Large stretches of land have already been cultivated as a result of this action. In this way these mine dumps are being cultivated at a rate of approximately 400 ha per annum, and I feel that one should express sincere gratitude towards people like the hon. member for Langlaagte who were actively responsible for these actions being launched. Large areas are being transformed into green hills and green open spaces where animal life can even be established once again. These spaces then once again become available for the establishment of towns and industries and the creation of recreational facilities for the city dweller. It is definitely a praiseworthy attempt that is welcomed by every nature lover and hopefully the ugly scars of mining development in South Africa, which had their origin as early as in 1886, will ultimately be totally eliminated.

Our fine heritage of fields covered in trees, hills covered in grass, our mountains, wealth of flowers and the clean, blue sky above gives us the solemn responsibility of preserving and protecting them for the sake of those who are going to live in this country after us. This is the aim of the Prevention of Atmospheric Pollution Amendment Bill, and that is why I am pleased to support it. As a result of the proposed amendments, the Act is now being made more effective and those vital conservation actions can be implemented in the most effective manner.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to thank the hon. member for Pietersburg for his contribution. Hon. members who have left the House because of other activities and have not followed the discussion possibly found it difficult to ascertain what the Bill is actually about. However, the hon. member for Pietersburg indicated clearly that the Bill deals with the question of air pollution and referred to the role which inadequate stoves play in this regard. He pointed out that this measure is specifically aimed at affording relief in areas where these stoves are used. He said that certain parts of these stoves may not be working properly and that we should therefore protect people who buy such stoves. Since smokeless ovens are manufactured in the country it is no longer necessary to use the old coal-burning stoves. A short while ago I installed a smokeless stove in my farmhouse. It is manufactured by a well-known firm which also produces electric stoves and is a very interesting type of stove. This stove burns upside down. You put the wood on top and the coals underneath. At first I thought that I had read the instructions upside down and that such a stove could not work, but it is indeed a smokeless stove, as no smoke came from the chimney.

The hon. member emphasized that the purpose of this legislation is to protect people who wish to prevent air pollution. He also explained why the clauses dealing with dust occur in the Bill. The mine-dumps belong to no one, especially when we want to hold somebody liable for the cost of planting grass on them, which is a very expensive process.

I think the hon. member mentioned it, but we are aware that the hon. member for Langlaagte had a lot to do with the planting of grass on mine-dumps in his constituency. This hon. member made a very good contribution and brought the discussion back to air pollution. I thank him for that, because it enables me to reply meaningfully to the debate.

I wish also to thank other hon. members who took part in the general discussion.

†The hon. member for Parktown took us from Clifton to Parktown and also referred to a debate that took place yesterday. He spoke of hospital chimneys. It was interesting to see the process of thrust and parry between the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Langlaagte.

*It reminds me very much of the young and the old bull in politics. [Interjections.] I believe neither of them have any doubts in their minds about who the “young bull” and who the “old bull” is. However, if they do not wish to be addressed as bulls, I will change it. [Interjections.] It was interesting to hear how much the hon. member for Langlaagte knows about dust. It was clear that he, as an old bull in politics, can kick up dust when necessary, like a real fighter. The hon. member for Parktown raised quite a few points.

†He mentioned the tightening up of regulations and also expressed sentiments about protecting me from the hon. member for Langlaagte. Well, I suppose that when blood becomes thinner than water, it is right that friendship should prevail and that one should protect one’s friends from one’s blood brothers.

*I wish to thank the hon. member for his reference to chimneys. We have not had any complaints, but if the hon. member wishes to submit a complaint to us about the chimney at that specific hospital, we shall go into it. We shall then look into the aspect of pollution. It is very difficult to get this type of chimney to be smokeless. I was involved in this for many years. The problem lies in the quality of the coal used, as well as the quality of the diesel fuel used. It also lies in the method of stoking, the efficiency of the installation and many other things as well. However, I know that the State and the provinces definitely go out of their way to ensure that smoke pollution in towns is kept to a minimum. I thank the hon. member for his support. I found his conversation with the hon. member for Langlaagte quite interesting.

The hon. member for Langlaagte very clearly imparted his knowledge of dust and dust pollution to us. He said that he does not have the required medical knowledge to know whether or not certain substances carry germs and that he leaves it in the hands of people with more knowledge of those types of substance. I think his speech was quite an excellent one. He also referred briefly to the question of smoke-producing stoves. Although he approached the problem from a completely different angle, I must agree with him. I think it is the duty of employers throughout South Africa to ensure that they supply their employees with smokeless coal-burning stoves, especially in heavily-populated areas. Perhaps he could give it to them as a gift. I do not think it would be an intolerable financial burden to employers. I think it could be done as a token of goodwill. The hon. member referred specifically to Parktown and Houghton. However, this does not only apply to those areas. It can be done throughout the country and will be appreciated by all.

†The hon. member for Berea took a little side swipe at the Government about the electrification of Soweto, which is something I do not want to go into. I must, however, mention the fact that he referred to the question of seven cancer deaths a day resulting from smoke. Those deaths do not, however, only result from the kind of smoke being dealt with in this legislation. What is involved there are also cigarette smoke and other inhalants. A number of things can cause lung cancer. In fact, there may be some causes we do not even know about yet. There are people who do not smoke at all and who live in high-lying areas where they never come into much contact with smoke pollution; yet they also contract cancer. I do not think the fact that there are many deaths from lung cancer every year can be regarded as a shocking state of affairs or that blame should be laid at the door of the Government. It is hard luck for the people who get cancer, but one certainly cannot determine the exact causes in every case.

The hon. member also mentioned lead as one of the air-pollutants. He said we should do more about this. The question of lead-poisoning is continually receiving the attention of researchers. In fact, for many years now—not only here, but also abroad—the National Centre for Occupational Health has been giving this matter its ongoing top priority attention in research projects. There is no easy way to phase out lead in many of our chemical compounds. When petrol is burnt, lead is one of the elements released into the atmosphere. One also finds lead in paint, batteries and many other things. It is obviously a very dangerous type of poison. One can also be poisoned by eating certain types of fish. In fact, shark meat contains a very large quantity of lead. When people are suffering from lead poisoning one cannot simply attribute it to air pollution. One has to investigate their history to establish how they ingested this poison.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister, while he is dealing with the question of lead poisoning, whether he will concede that the greatest percentage of lead in the atmosphere can be attributed to the use of petrol and whether he will investigate ways and means of reducing the lead content in petrol in South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is not here at the moment and I shall convey that request to him because he will have to look into the question of the lead content in petrol and successful ways of burning it. Without any hesitation I can say that that is one of the major causes of lead in the atmosphere. Whether it is there in sufficient quantities to cause disease is something we are trying to establish by means of research. I must point out to the hon. member, however, that although lead in the atmosphere is one of the substances causing pollution there are to our knowledge, due to technological advance and improvements and new processes being applied in industry, at least 45 000 substances that we have already identified that are polluting our water and our atmosphere. This is accordingly a huge task which goes hand in hand with development. If one has development, one also has pollution. If on the other hand one has no development one still has pollution in the form of smoke and other types which are easily visible with the naked eye. However, the type of pollution that accompanies development—if one uses the word development in italics—is the type that is more difficult to identify because one very often does not see it and by the time one knows about it one is already ill.

The hon. member also mentioned the question of staff and felt that more staff should be appointed. There is a shortage of staff but I must point out to the hon. member that we are only concerned with Parts II and IV of the Act. Part III dealing with pollution by smoke and Part V dealing with fumes emitted by vehicles are actually applied by local authorities. In cases where they require smoke-free zones they have to apply and I then agree to their regulations and declare these areas as smoke-free areas. That is where my task ends as far as the Act is concerned. They have to control the actual pollution and especially pollution by vehicles in the area of that local authority. We do have a shortage of staff but we are satisfied that these people are doing a very good job. This is not something that one keeps returning to once one has identified the problem. The problem is either handed back to the head office or dealt with in a certain way. One does not have to have an officer for every place that is being polluted. One can have officers in regions and they can do a great deal of work every day. They are all people who are dedicated to the task of keeping the environment free from pollution.

I think that covers most of the points hon. members have raised. Although the Bill may be very brief it is nevertheless very important and is one that will be of vast importance to the people who really need it. As far as smoke-free stoves are concerned, this legislation is one of the best that have been passed in this House to protect people against buying something at a reasonable price and then finding after a time that it does not work properly. By way of this measure and the electrification of some of these areas we hope to overcome the worst of the smoke pollution that is caused by this type of stove. As far as the question of dust is concerned I feel that this aspect has been fully dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The share of the State in the saw-milling industry in the country has been highlighted on a number of occasions, for example in Report No. 304 of the Board of Trade and Industries, in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Trade Activities of State departments—the so-called Steenkamp Commission—and again, recently, in Report No. 1933 of the Board of Trade and Industries, which was tabled last year.

In its latest report the Board of Trade and Industries recommended, inter alia, as follows—

1. 218. While State plantations should continue to operate, the board recommends that a committee be appointed to consider the separate position of each individual State sawmill with a view to the possibility of withdrawal of State participation in respect of such sawmill, whether by way of the closing of such mill or by way of its sale to private sawmilling interests. In no individual case, however, should State participation be terminated if it could lead to an unfavourable market structure through excessive concentration.
2. 219. In respect of cases where it appears that it is not desirable or feasible to end State participation, consideration should be given to the question whether the sawmills concerned can be transferred to a separate State-owned facility or corporation, distinct from the Department of Forestry, which would operate and man age the sawmills largely on business lines, but subject to the need to regulate output in accordance with actual or anticipated changes in market conditions.

With a view to the above, and in the light of the fact that the Government has committed itself to closer co-operation with and greater involvement by the private sector, it has become necessary to take a fresh look at my department’s sawmilling activities and to investigate possibilities of closer liaison with the private sector of the South African forestry industry in this field. The idea was also to use any opportunities that may occur to bring about rationalization of sawmilling activities, where possible, in areas where State sawmills were situated.

Arising out of this, negotiations were, inter alia, initiated with the Hans Merensky Foundation with regard to the Tweefontein State sawmill at Sabie. The Foundation has a hardwood and a softwood contract with the State in the Sabie area, and is interested in entering into a partnership with the State in terms of which the two parties will obtain an equal shareholding in the sawmilling activities of both parties at Sabie, that is to say, the Hans Merensky Foundation in the Tweefontein State Sawmill and the State in the Foundation’s hardwood and soft wood sawmill at Sabie.

The result of the negotiations was that agreement was reached between the two parties that—

1. (a) a new company to be known as the Tweefontein Timber Company Limited would be established by law and that the company would begin to conduct business on 1 April 1981;
2. (b) the State and the Hans Merensky Foundation would have an equal shareholding in the company to be founded;
3. (c) the company to be founded would purchase the Tweefontein State Sawmill from the State and the sawmill known as “H.M. Timber Structures (Proprietary) Limited”, from the Hans Merensky Foundation at Sabie;
4. (d) the company to be founded would rebuild the Tweefontein State Sawmill and the Hans Merensky Foundation’s sawmill for the exclusive processing of hard wood;
5. (e) the State and the Hans Merensky Foundation would be represented by an equal number of directors on the board of directors of the company to be founded; and
6. (f) “Hans Merensky Management Services (Proprietary) Limited” would act as general manager, secretaries and marketing agents of the company to be founded.

The exclusive aim of the legislation at present before the House is to give effect to the principles I have just mentioned. Accordingly the Bill merely comprises the memorandum of association with the customary provisions of the company to be founded. I believe that the provisions contained in the Bill are clear and that hon. members will pardon me for not dwelling on them at greater length at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. the Minister’s introduction to this Bill. I think that I should take this occasion to congratulate the hon. the Minister because there was a time that we felt that he was perhaps leaving this House forever when he went off to become Administrator of the Orange Free State. He had served a very distinguished term as Deputy Speaker of this House and I think that it was with considerable regret that we saw him go. Now that we have got him back we can only congratulate him on his first Bill. We also wish him a happy period of office. It is perhaps a little unusual for anybody from this side of the House to congratulate people on that side of the House. However, we do not wish him well in political terms; it is only in personal terms that I now take the opportunity of wishing him well.

He is a fine fellow.

Luckily, the first Bill that he brings to this House is a good Bill. It follows the policy of rationalization of the State’s timber interests. The forestry group of which I was a member visited this particular sawmill approximately two years ago in Sabie and we looked at its operations with great interest. I think we were all impressed by what we saw there. The commitment by the State to rationalization in favour of private enterprise has the support of this side of the House. This is perhaps just a first step in the direction of rationalization in that the Tweefontein Timber Company sawmills are operating on the basis of half private enterprise and half State. We can possibly say that this is a step in the right direction. We who are a party that is committed to free enterprise have always been somewhat worried by a situation where the State was competing with private forestry interests. Even if this was done efficiently we have always felt that that sort of protection has been to the disadvantage of the competing interest from private enterprise. This Bill is perhaps the first of many. The Weza Timber Company has existed for some years and I think I am right in saying that this is only the second semi-State company that will come into operation. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us what his intentions are in regard to other forestry interests owned by the State.

There are a couple of things that worry us to a certain extent. In terms of the Bill companies of this nature do not have to follow the dictates of the Companies Act. I know this is so with most State corporations but I am not sure that it is the right thing with regard to this. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us why it is necessary for a company of this sort to be above the law that applies to private enterprise.

They cannot see the wood for the trees.

I think this is a matter that deserves consideration and I am sure that this hon. Minister, because I am sure he is going to be very anxious to please, is going to give due consideration to this and, if he realizes that this is wrong, will remove it from the Bill. I believe that if one is going to establish a company of this nature it must prove itself. It must prove that it can stand on its own feet in the open market and face competition from outside. I would say that it is also necessary for the State which uses State sawmills for its timber requirements to regard a company like the new Tweefontein Timber Company envisaged in this piece of legislation as a normal tenderer rather than an established supplier for State requirements. It is absolutely imperative that they prove that their timber can be produced as cheaply and as efficiently as that of any competing company in private enterprise when it comes to supplying the State and also that their quality is just as good. All in all, we do believe this Bill has a great deal of merit. We think the Department of Forestry is moving in the right direction. We will support this Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I gladly associate myself with the good wishes which the hon. member for Orange Grove conveyed to the hon. the Minister, who is introducing a Bill here today in his new capacity for the first time. It is a very great privilege for us on this side of the House, and in particular those of us in the study group on forestry, who concern themselves with the questions of forestry in South Africa, to have a person of the calibre of this hon. Minister at the helm in this very important department.

The purpose of this Bill is, as it is stated, to promote the processing and reprocessing of timber. Timber is a basic raw material which is indispensable in every developing community. When we consider that Jan van Riebeeck, on his arrival here at the Cape, immediately needed timber for firewood, to build houses and also to construct the first fort, we realize that the availability of an adequate supply of timber of the correct type and quality played an important role in the development of our fatherland. The Voortrekkers’ oxwagons could not have moved northwards if the correct timber for the manufacture of those wagons had not been available. Subsequently, during the 19th century, timber was also indispensable for the construction of the railway line from Cape Town to Kimberley, for without timber for the sleepers of that railway line, without timber for the manufacture of the necessary telegraph poles and without timber to keep the locomotives running, the railway line from here to Kimberley was inconceivable.

Then, too, I want to refer to a key industry in the development of our country, i.e. the mining industry. Over a period of a century and longer timber, has been necessary for the props for shafts and tunnels in our mines. Consequently our mining industry, too, would have been inconceivable without timber. But where did this timber come from? It is, after all, well known that South Africa is a country poorly endowed with natural forests. Our timber resources had to be planted and in this the State, through its Department of Forestry, played a pioneering role of decisive importance. The hon. member for Orange Grove made the remark that one should guard against the State becoming too great a competitive factor with the private sector in the timber industry. Without the role of the State in the history of forestry in South Africa, we should not have had this fine industry which we have today. The Bill in fact heralds the end of a specific phase in the part the State has played in the development of our forest reserves. What does the Bill provide for? It provides for the transfer of the interests of the State in a specific forestry area to a company in which the private sector is to receive an interest of 50%.

The fact is that in the past the private sector showed little interest in the forestry industry. The fact that South Africa is a country which is able to supply virtually all its own requirements in timber and timber products and has even become an exporter of timber products, is chiefly due to the pioneering work done in this field by the State itself through its Department of Forestry, not only as far as the establishment of our plantations is concerned, but also their development as well as the processing of the products yielded by the plantations.

To illustrate this, let me quote the example of what happened in the late ’thirties, when very large quantities of sawn timber became available from State plantations which had been established since 1916. That wood became available for processing, but there was virtually no interest on the part of the private sector and the State was compelled to take a hand and initiate the exploitation and processing of the products. This is one of the reasons why a sawmill such as the Tweefontein sawmill was established, and is a fine undertaking today.

It was only after the Second World War that the private sector entered this industry in earnest. Gradually the State’s share and its contribution to the forestry industry decreased in favour of the private sector.

Today we have the situation that the forestry industry and its related industries are a gigantic industry which is playing an important role in our country’s economy. Millions of rands have been invested in it. Approximately 150 000 people earn a living in the industry and more than 1 million hectares of land have been afforested. This is an exceptional achievement if one considers that 1 million hectares of trees make South Africa one of the most important cultivators of commercial plantations of exotic trees in the world. This is certainly a feather in the cap of the Department of Forestry and the State’s pioneering work, for which this House and the country congratulate them wholeheartedly.

In the same breath, however, one must concede that the establishment of plantations and the processing of the timber products they produce on a commercial scale are not primarily the tasks of a Government department, and are best carried out by the private sector. This began to be realized some years ago. The hon. the Minister referred to the ideas which had to bring change to the traditional situation. In view of the aforegoing it was decided that the State should withdraw systematically from this important sector in favour of the private sector, but always with the protection of the State’s interests.

I should like to describe it in these terms: We are now going to have a marriage between the State and the private sector in a sphere in which, on the one hand, the State has 4 000 hectares of afforested land with processing installations. In addition the State has a neighbour in the form of the Hans Merensky Foundation which also has plantations and processing installations. We have here a felicitous partnership between the private sector and the State, for this is what the Bill is making provision for. It is also an example of what rationalization ought to be. It promotes productivity, decreases overhead costs and, what is also very important, it gives rise to a better utilization not only of manpower, but also of the raw materials involved.

While we recognize that a specific pioneering phase of the State’s forestry activities has now almost been completed and that we are now entering a phase in which the private sector is going to play an ever-increasing part, and while we pay tribute to the role which the State has played in this very important sphere in the past, we cannot but welcome the new dispensation, and that is why the Bill before this House deserves the support of all hon. members. Consequently I gladly join with the hon. member for Orange Grove in his and his party’s support of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to the hon. member for Ermelo. He gave us a very interesting and well considered survey of the timber industry in South Africa, and it is always a pleasure to listen to somebody who is very interested in one of the most valuable natural resources we have.

†We would also like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his return to the House. We welcome him back and wish him every success in his new portfolio.

The question of shifting the emphasis of total State participation in the timber and sawmilling industry to one of a joint venture, is one which my party supports. We deal here with a resource that is becoming increasingly scarce. Many companies are today involved in finding substitutes for basic and primary wood utilization, and I think the competition and ingenuity of private enterprise in a joint venture like this are definitely going to be to the benefit of the product wood as well as the timber and sawmilling industry.

There are, however, one or two aspects in the Bill which I would like to ask the hon. the Minister about. Doing so does not detract, of course, from our support for the Bill. We should like some clarity on the question of the pricing policy that this joint venture will have towards the supply of timber to the State. I particularly refer to clause 3(b), which deals with the by-products that the Minister may authorize the board to approve for manufacture. We are particularly concerned about the pricing policy that will be applied there. The hon. member for Orange Grove did mention that a wary eye should be kept on the fact that these products should be market competitive and that the principle of tendering, and being competitive in the tendering situation, should be given high priority in this particular case. We are, however, also concerned about the pricing policy that will flow from the fact that one has long-term contracts with the Government, perhaps, as is mentioned in the Bill, not only in the case of sawn timber or round logs, but in particular in the case of by-products such as resin and turpentine which may be derived from timber by this joint venture. Because then the hon. the Minister and his department will be taking the joint venture out of the primary timber supply business and into what one could almost call the chemical processing business where the raw material is derived from timber. We believe that the hon. the Minister and the board of this joint venture should be particularly careful, when it comes to the production of by-products, that they do not now undo all the good they are doing by moving into a joint venture and perhaps inadvertently encroaching upon the terrain occupied by private free enterprise today.

We have very little difficulty with the remaining parts of the Bill. We find the composition of the board quite acceptable, but the hon. the Minister might well give consideration to a staggering of the period for which directors can be members of the board of the joint company. I am talking in particular about the members of the board who will come from the hon. the Minister’s department. They are all going to find themselves ready for re-election after a three-year period. Perhaps in the long term it would be better to stagger their period rather than having them all retire at the same time. In all probability the same members will make themselves available for re-election to the board, but perhaps as a precaution, to see that some expertise remains with the board, one should not let all the members from the hon. the Minister’s department retire at the same time.

I would appreciate the hon. the Minister’s comments on the pricing policy. Perhaps he could tell us a little more about what he intends to do regarding the by-products and how competitive the industry will be in this respect. Perhaps he could also assure the House that they will not encroach upon the terrain of private free enterprise. We certainly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North will, I am sure, pardon me for not referring to his speech now, for it seems to me that there is general unanimity as regards the Bill.

However, as a newcomer to this study group I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of congratulating the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation and of conveying our gratitude to the hon. the Minister and his department for what they have done in respect of the conservation of our heritage, which is so precious to all of us, and for this legislation which signifies progress for our country.

The Bill before the House may be seen as the continuation of the hon. the Prime Minister’s initiative and the subsequent Carlton conference with the private sector. This conference served as a guideline for closer co-operation between the State and private bodies and persons through the consolidation of energies, skills and technological knowledge. The establishment of the Tweefontein Timber Company and the Hans Merensky Foundation as a group is a good example of this. As far as I know the Weza Sawmills near Harding in Natal were established on the basis of a similar principle. The Weza company is one of our country’s biggest business undertakings and we have only the Department of Forestry to thank in that regard. Great benefit may be derived from the partnership between the State and private business enterprises, and this applies to both parties. There are, for example, mutual benefits in the sense of the gaining of advanced knowledge, new techniques of production, processing and the development in the production methods of new products, etc. In the case of the establishment of the Tweefontein Timber Company there is an equal division of directors. Profits are automatically ploughed back into the company. This means that advanced research takes place, as well as scientific and technological progress. This progress is to the benefit of similar industries.

The Tweefontein Hans Merensky Mills will purchase and process timber in the round. Impregnated and reprocessed timber products will be provided to the consumer in planed, sawn or laminated form. For interest’s sake I should like to mention a few statistics. Annual sales of 1,1 million hectares of exotic plantations yield 10 million cubic metres of timber; 2,960 million cubic metres of sawn logs are converted into structural and other products; 3,777 million cubic metres of pulpwood for the production of paper and other products; 2,534 million cubic metres of round mining timber for props in the mining industry and 0,303 million cubic metres of round poles for impregnation for fence, telephone and transmission poles. In 1978 there were altogether 140 sawmills in the Republic. Seven were under Government control. Within the next 10 years plantations will yield an estimated 14 million cubic metres of roundwood.

Sir, a few days ago a debate was conducted here about national monuments. If it were at all possible for me to place a sawmill or sawmills in this category I believe I would be able to declare Elandshoek and the Tweefontein Timber Company national monuments. It is said that during the ’thirties, the depression years, when there was famine in our country, the Government employed unemployed persons to plant this plantation. It is also said that a large percentage of people working on these plantations at present are already the third or fourth generation doing this work. For these people who feel at home in the plantations, whether in the Eastern Transvaal, the Cape or Natal, the song of the loerie, the whispering of the wind in the branches of the pine trees and the sound of the saw cleaving the pine, is the forester’s own symphony. Seen in that light, and for the reasons already mentioned, it is essential that Government undertakings, just like the State administration, must be rationalized as far as possible. That is why it is a privilege for me to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to thank hon. members who have taken part in the discussion. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Orange Grove for his good wishes. Sir, when I think back to the days when I sat in the Chair that you are at present occupying, if there was one hon. member in this House who caused me grave problems it was the hon. member for Orange Grove. But in spite of that we remained friends, and accordingly I thank him all the more sincerely for his good wishes. I also wish to thank the other hon. members.

The hon. member said it was a step in the right direction that the control of sawmills was increasingly being transferred to private companies. There is a specific reason why we entered into a partnership with this company, the Hans Merensky Foundation. In the first place, the State did not have any sawmills processing and sawing hardwood. We do not know a great deal about the sawing of hardwood. We do know about the sawing of softwood. We think it is in the interests of the industry that the forestry department should also gain an intimate working knowledge of hardwood sawmills. Accordingly it was decided to enter into a partnership with this company. The hon. member asked why this company should be exempted from the provisions of the Company’s Act. That is a very good question. We were of course in a position simply to float a company together with the Hans Merensky Foundation, register it under the Companies Act and leave it at that. However, since State money was involved, we prefered to give Parliament the say rather than to make use of the Company’s Act in the ordinary way. That is why we preferred to introduce legislation in terms of which the company will operate. However, it is by no means our intention to exempt the company from the normal operation of the Companies Act. The company will operate in accordance with the Act. The only reason we approached the House with this Bill was to afford the House a say in this matter, since Government money is involved.

I wish also to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Ermelo. He comes from that part of the world, a beautiful part of the world. He has an intimate knowledge of the timber industry and when he speaks about it, one can understand him. He lives with the timber, he knows that part of the world, he knows the industry and we thank him for that. He is right when he says that as far as the timber industry is concerned, the State has played a pioneering role. Initially it was only the State that established sawmills because the private sector did not believe that the sawmilling industry could be a remunerative industry. The State has already got rid of its sawmills. In the process the Elandshoek Sawmill—one of the hon. members referred to it—has summarily sold to a private company, with the result that apart from the Tweefontein Timber Company and the Weza Timber Company to which reference has also been made, the State only possesses four sawmills, one in the Northern Transvaal near Louis Trichardt, one in the Eastern Transvaal, one in the vicinity of George and one at Wemmershoek. Therefore, although the State is very intimately involved with the forestry industry because it owns large plantations, it is no longer intimately involved in the sawmilling industry.

†The hon. member for Durban North asked what the price policy employed will be. This company will be operated as an ordinary company. It will be managed by Hans Merensky Management Services (Pty.) Ltd., i.e. by a board, and it will be operated along ordinary business lines. If the State wants to buy from this company, it will have to do so on the usual tender basis.

*There will be no preferential treatment for the State.

It is of interest that feasibility studies have already been carried out which indicate that the pine sawmills will show a profit of R2 400 000 from 1 April 1982 to 31 March 1983 and subsequently a profit of R3 200 000. After April 1985 the hardwood sawmill will show a profit of R685 000. We therefore expect that this company will show a profit of approximately R3 million per annum. As I have said, it will be run purely on business principles, business tariffs will apply and it will operate just like any other ordinary company, with the difference that the audit balance sheets of the company will be tabled here every year.

The hon. member for Germiston must have a talent for poetry buried within him somewhere, when he begins to speak about the song of the Loerie, the aroma of pine trees and the humming of the forester. I want to thank him for his speech and his support.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the Mineral Laws Supplementary Act came into operation during 1975 it has been implemented with very good results. The continuous fragmentation of mineral rights has to a large extent been curbed, and it has become possible to allow prospective prospectors to investigate and exploit mineral resources which had become inaccessible as a result of certain circumstances.

The purpose of this Bill is to eliminate certain problem areas which have been encountered since the commencement of the Mineral Laws Supplementary Act, and to make a few adjustments which have become necessary as a result of the rationalization of the Public Service. The latter amendments are of an organizational nature; they are quite simple to understand and consequently do not require any special elucidation.

As hon. members will observe, the minor amendments which are being proposed in respect of section 2 of the Act are aimed firstly, while the opportunity presents itself, at making it clear that a division of any right to any mineral means a division into undivided shares and, secondly, at making the reference to the approval in writing by the Minister which has to be obtained for such division more meaningful.

With the application of the provisions of section 4 of the Act quite a number of cases have been encountered during the past five years in which the right to prospect and to mine could not be obtained in the customary manner because the scope of section 4 was not wide enough. The result is that potentially important mineral resources still remain inaccessible. The principal examples of such cases are, firstly, the case where the right to any minerals is entirely separated from the ownership of the land concerned and is registered in the name of a single holder, while that holder cannot be located at all or while such a holder is deceased and his heir cannot be traced either. Consequently it is being proposed that section 4(1) of the Act should be extended slightly so as to apply in respect of such a case as well. Secondly the case occurs where the right to any minerals in respect of land is held jointly by the State and other persons in undivided shares, and a prospecting lease for precious metals and base minerals cannot be granted in terms of section 16 of the Mining Rights Act, 1967, or a prospecting and digging agreement for precious stones cannot be entered into in terms of section 20 of the Precious Stones Act, 1964, for the reasons specified in section 4(1) of the Act. It is consequently being proposed that the provisions of section 4(1) of the Act be extended to make provision as well for both the granting of such a prospecting lease and the entering into of such a prospecting and digging agreement.

†As a result of the amendment proposed in respect of section 4(1) of the Act, certain adjustments are necessary as far as that section and section 5 of the Act are concerned.

The amendment of section 6 of the Act is necessary to bring on even terms the State and a mine owner who is in terms of that section directed to purchase land. In this regard I should like to point out that if the State acquires land under section 6, that land is deemed to be required for public purposes and the provisions of the Expropriation Act, 1975, apply in respect of the acquisition thereof. In that case it means that the market value of the land concerned is taken as the basis on which the purchase price is determined. The valuation principles outlined in the Expropriation Act ensure a reasonable purchase price. If the State decides, however, that it should not acquire the land, the mining company is directed by the State to purchase the land, in which case, if the landowner and the mining company are unable to agree, the purchase price is determined by arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Act, 1965. The latter Act does not provide for any guide-lines for the determination of the purchase price of the land, as is done in the Expropriation Act. It implies that both parties are exposed to reasonable and unreasonable criteria that can be submitted in cases of arbitration. In these circumstances it is a fair and reasonable arrangement to create a firm set of guide-lines to serve as a sound basis for negotiation, especially in the interest of the landowner who is already with his back against the wall in the case where his farming unit has been declared uneconomic by himself, or when his farming is disrupted by the activities of the person who is lawfully entitled to mine on his farm. On the other hand such guide-lines will of course bring the mine-owner, who is under obligation to purchase the land, on even terms with not only the State, but also the landowner, and will certainly assist him in negotiating a fair and reasonable purchase price.

Hon. members will also appreciate that arbitration could be a time-consuming process. Consequently, the guide-lines envisaged in clause 5 of the Bill will also facilitate the arbitrator’s function and thus accelerate the process. It is therefore suggested that section 6 of the principal Act be amended so as to provide that, if the purchase price is to be determined by arbitration, the guide-lines laid down by section 12 of the Expropriation Act, 1975, shall mutatis mutandis apply in determining the purchase price of the land in question.

Referring to the final clause of the Bill, which is of a substantial nature—that is clause 6—I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that most of the applications received by the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs in terms of the Act are of such a nature that they can be entertained forthwith by the Director-General and other officials of the department assisting him. In order to enable the Minister to delegate his powers in this regard, it is suggested that the proposed new section 6A be inserted in the principal Act.

Mr. Speaker, when the principal Act was brought to this House in the form of a Bill, some six years ago, it was supported by Opposition parties for the reason that both in fact and in principle it was clear that the fragmentation of mining rights was detrimental to the proper development and exploitation of mineral resources in this country, and that something effective had to be done about setting free those mining areas which had become tied up through the fragmentation of mining rights, most particularly where a number of people—more than one person— held indivisible shares. For this reason Opposition parties decided to support the Bill, but not without certain misgivings and certain reservations.

These reservations related firstly to the question of private rights. It was thought at the time that the powers granted to the Minister—the powers to enforce the cession of mineral rights—could in fact lead to the deprivation of individual rights at the cost of certain individuals. The other reason which led to misgivings was the fact that the procedures laid down for the acquisition of properties was subject to arbitration procedures in the case of transfers, as from individuals to mining companies, and to expropriation procedures where the State decided to take over these mining rights. It was felt that protracted negotiations might drag on for a very long time at very high costs perhaps to the individuals concerned and that this might be a detrimental feature of the Bill. However, Sir, as I have said, it was decided to support the Bill and now that the hon. the Minister has brought an amending Bill before the House, one naturally wishes to look to see to what extent this amending Bill makes good the deficiencies that were predicted at the time.

I think it can be said without further ado that most of the provisions of this Bill are acceptable to us. The question of arbitration and negotiation appears to have been improved by the new clause contained in this Bill and we believe that this will help to expedite the very delays which have apparently been taking place and which we saw as a drawback at the time when we discussed the Bill, which is now the principal Act, in this House about six years ago. Therefore, Sir, we have no objection to this because we believe it is an improvement.

We are slightly less happy about the rights of the individual in regard to the transfer of mining rights from such individual in certain circumstances. I should like to start by pointing out that although the hon. the Minister refers to it as a comparatively minor change, I am not sure that this is in fact so. I want to start with the definitions. I am referring here to clause 1 which amends section 1 of the principal Act. In this definitions clause the following definition of “holder” is substituted for the existing definition—

Now, Sir, the amended text of this definition means something rather different from the text that it amends. The original definition reads as follows—

This meant that a person who held an undivided share was classed as a holder and a holder was defined as a person who held the right to minerals and in whose name any undivided share was registered. We now have a new definition in which a holder means any person who has a right to minerals or a person in whose name an undivided share is registered. Now there are two classes of persons. The one is simply the holder of a mineral right and he could be an individual. He is a holder. The other class of holder is a person who has an undivided share, who has the right to a mineral or an undivided share in such mineral rights. I believe that this amendment has led to the inclusion of a new class of person. What was envisaged at the time was that the Act should apply to persons who had fragments of mineral rights or had shareholdings in shares which themselves were undivided. In effect it applied to a multiplicity of persons in respect of undivided shares. Now, Sir, we are starting to look at a person who is himself an individual with a mineral right. He himself now becomes vulnerable.

When we turn to clause 2 of the Bill we find that it amends section 2 of the principal Act by the substitution for paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the following paragraph—

That refers to the basic principle and relates purely to mineral rights. However, when we go on, and we come to the question of prospecting, we find a new situation arising. I say this because the Bill as it now stands does something rather different. The proposed new section 4 inserted by clause 3 reads, inter alia, as follows—

Here again we have the principle introduced of one holder of a mineral right. The proposed new section goes on to say—

This could be the individual holder and if his whereabouts are not readily ascertainable, certain consequences can follow. Let me quote further—

We now have a situation in which this individual holder, not the fragmentary holder mentioned in the original Act, is now placed in jeopardy if he has, in fact, received his rights by testament from a testator and he has not taken cession within two years of such entitlement.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate when he replies what he has in mind in regard to the words “became so entitled”. We know that the administration of estates sometimes takes a very long time. If, in fact, the entitlement is dated from the time the testator died or the will was read, two years can easily elapse before the beneficiary even acquires the right and certainly long before he can take cession thereof.

The hon. the Minister will know that once an administrator is appointed to handle an estate, he has to go through a number of hoops with the Master of the Supreme Court. He has to produce an inventory and draw up an administration and distribution account. This account has to lie in public for a certain length of time and eventually his duties are not discharged until the Master has released him from his duty. Only at that stage, when the accounts have been approved by the Master and the administrator has been given permission to go ahead with the final distribution, do the beneficiaries or heirs actually take over full rights in the mineral rights or whatever they have received from the testator.

I should like the assurance from the hon. the Minister that when the words “the date on which he became so entitled” are used, that date applies to the time when he actually receives transfer of those rights, and that the entitlement does not refer to some other date between the death of the testator and during the administration of the estate. I say this because if in fact it dates from the time when the cession of the mineral rights actually takes place, which will only be done after the Master has approved the estate account, then he has two years from that date in which to arrange cession. I think this gives him a reasonable chance to defend his own interests whereas the opposite would not be the case.

Lastly—we are still dealing of course with permission by the Minister for prospecting rights—the proposed section 4(1)(b)(ii) provides that the right to prospect may be granted if it—

I feel this is a very wide discretion that is being granted to the Minister. We would go along with the hon. the Minister where he is trying to get the mining operations going effectively and is being held up by the fragmentation of rights or the holding of indivisible shares by a number of holders. However, in terms of this amending Bill we are also dealing with an individual and, in the case of an individual also, the Minister can, in fact, insist on cession for “any other reason which the Minister deems adequate”. The hon. the Minister may argue that there is a safeguarding provision, and so there is in the proposed new section 4(2), and I quote—

In previous provisions—

It seems to me that here we come to the crux of the matter, because I think I have shown in my argument that in addition to those classes of people who share in fragmentary rights, those classes of persons who are participants in a holding involving indivisible shares or undivided shares, this Bill also aims at the individual owner who is not a holder of fragmentary rights, nor shares with other people the possession of undivided shares. What protection do we give the individual? It seems to me that the proposed new section 4(2) does attempt to afford him protection, but there are exceptions to the protection he may enjoy. These exceptions are embodied in the following—

I have several questions to put to the hon. the Minister. The first involves the words—

If one refers to the Afrikaans text one finds the following—

The English says “by reason of the fact that the whereabouts of the said person is not readily ascertainable”, whilst the Afrikaans text states “weens die feit dat genoemde persoon nie opgespoor kan word nie”. There is, however, a big difference between “whereabouts … not readily ascertainable” and “nie opgespoor kan word nie”. The correct Afrikaans translation would be “dat sy verblyfplek nie redelik vasgestel kan word nie”. The Afrikaans does not, however, say that. It says “dat genoemde persoon nie opgespoor kan word nie”, which, in English would read “that the said person cannot be traced”. There is a difference in degree between the English and Afrikaans phrases. I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with that.

Secondly, I should like him to deal with the question of the—

If the hon. the Minister employs this motivation, i.e. “any other reason which the Minister deems adequate, with the consent in writing of such person”, will the consent apply only to this last reason which the hon. the Minister may find adequate or, since it appears after a comma, does it also apply to the case of a person whose whereabouts cannot be ascertained? If his whereabouts cannot be ascertained, how can his consent in writing be obtained? I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would explain precisely what is meant, because it is not unimportant. We are dealing here with a special case, to which I have referred, i.e. the individual who was not the target of the legislation which we envisaged in 1975—and I presume even now—except for one reason. So what is the hon. the Minister’s reason for wishing the provision to embrace this individual, as distinct from the various people enjoying the undivided rights? This particular person, who has the sole right in these mineral rights—in these shares—is being included, and the hon. the Minister said in his speech that the reason why the legislation is being aimed at him is because such people may disappear or die and their heirs also be untraceable.

I wonder how many cases have actually occurred in which an individual with an undisputed, undivided claim to mining rights disappeared off the face of the earth and cannot be traced. If there were one or two it would not matter so much. One would sooner sacrifice that particular possibility than destroy a principle lying at the root of the legislation. I hope the hon. the Minister will give a satisfactory reply to this question before we give our consent to the Second Reading of this Bill. We have already indicated that this legislation is necessary. It is necessary so as to counter the fragmentation which has taken place in the holding of mineral rights and so that multiple possession of indivisible shares will not hold up the progress of mining operations in this country. The provisions have now been extended to the individual who is not subject to that fragmentation. He is not the cause of that fragmentation. We want to know under what conditions, why and with what safeguards, that individual holder will now be brought under the ambit of this Bill.

Subject to a satisfactory explanation by the hon. the Minister, we will reserve our decision in regard to the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Constantia for supporting the Bill. He expressed certain reservations. I am certain the hon. the Minister will give him an effective reply to them. One of the reservations he expressed was the invasion of rights, something which the hon. member’s party also advanced as an important debating point in the discussion of the principal Act. This Bill deals specifically with personal rights. But hon. members on the opposite side of this House seem to be more concerned about the rights of the one person who cannot be found than the rights of the 99 who are virtually being deprived of the mineral rights they hold, because that one person cannot be found. Those rights may only be held by one person. If that person is missing, and nobody knows where he is, it should be possible to apply the Act in that case as well. This Bill also makes provision for the case raised by the hon. member, where one person holds more than 50% of the shares.

The Mineral Laws Supplementary Act deals in particular with two invidious matters pertaining to the exploitation of certain minerals. In the past these gave rise to great frustration and unfairness. In the first place the Act dealt with the case where the mineral rights held had become so fragmented over the years that the holders of such rights could not be traced. Consequently it was substantially impossible to negotiate with all the interested parties in order to make essential exploitation—which was also in the national interests—possible. Not only does this Bill now prohibit the subdivision of mineral rights in undivided shares without the permission of the Minister, but it also makes it possible for the Minister in practice to act in the interests and on behalf of missing and wilful shareholders who are, through their small undivided shares, virtually engaged in blackmail, or in trying to place unreasonable obstacles in the way of the exploitation of minerals. As the Act stands on the Statute Book at present the Minister may not take action if a single person holds more than 50% of the mineral rights, except with the consent and in favour of that person. The principle that the Minister may participate in the transaction is now being extended in practice to cover the following cases as well: Firstly, to make provision for the case where one person holds the mineral rights in question and it is impossible to locate him; secondly, where the State owns the undivided shares in the minerals conjointly with one or more persons; and, thirdly, where it is found, for reasons which the Minister deems adequate, that one person, although he does not hold everything, owns more than 50% of the undivided shares and cannot be traced and his consent cannot therefore be obtained. It was on this point that the hon. member for Constantia commented. But it is an expression which is used in many laws. Surely it is completely impossible to specify all the reasons why a person cannot be found.

All the lengthy and complicated procedural amendments, apart from a few technical amendments, contained in clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill are consequential amendments to give effect to the three basic extensions which I have outlined.

There is also a second very important aspect which the principal Act deals with. Prior to 1975 the position was that if a landowner owned land, the mineral rights of which were held by a person or body and the latter were to mine for base minerals on that land, and in the process totally or partially destroy the top soil so that it was unsuitable or partially unsuitable for farming purposes, that landowner or farmer enjoyed no protection or right of redress. The principal Act rectified this matter, and at present the position is that if a farmer’s land should become unsuitable or uneconomic as a result of mining operations for base minerals, he or the mine-owner may make representations to the Minister. If the Minister, after an investigation, finds that the State requires the land, the State purchases the land and compensation is determined as prescribed in the Expropriation Act. But if the State does not purchase the land, the Minister serves notice on the person mining on that land and compels him to purchase the land, but with this difference that the purchase price is determined as prescribed in the Arbitration Act. This creates problems, because negotiation through arbitration is a lengthy, complex and expensive process. Unreasonable demands may be made which may complicate the matter even further. This situation is now being remedied in clause 5, which amends section 6 of the principal Act, to the effect that although the purchase price is still determined by arbitration, section 12 of the Expropriation Act are now being used to determine guidelines. The following question now arises: Is it fair or is it not fair? That is why we must examine section 12 of the Expropriation Act and see what it says. The most important guidelines prescribed by that section are that the amount offered as purchase price shall be an amount which a willing buyer will be prepared to pay to a willing seller. In effect, that is market value. If there is any factor, for example that that land may be used for industrial purposes, tending to increase the value of that land, this will be reflected in what a willing buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller for that type of land. Any actual financial loss which the owner may have suffered as a result of that transaction has to be added on to this amount. It is also laid down that any mineral rights which may play a part in that transfer or sale shall be taken into consideration in determining the compensation. Finally, a surcharge of 10% shall be added to the total compensation, to a maximum of R10 000. I should just like to comment on this by saying that I think that that amount of R10 000 has become inadequate. The amount of R10 000 is still the same amount as that prescribed in the 1975 Act.

Mindful of the fact that the farmer or owner may refuse to negotiate in terms of section 6(1)(d) of the principal Act, and that the person who is mining is required to buy the land—probably without really needing or wanting it—the provisions laid down in the Expropriation Act are very equitable and fair.

There are two aspects of this type of mining operation which affects farming activities and the top soil which I should like to emphasize however. In the first place a mining undertaking should under no circumstances be required to purchase land on which agriculture may still be practised, whether it is directly or indirectly added on to existing farming enterprises. In the second place, the topsoil which has been disturbed as a result of mining activities should be left in such a condition that it is once again suitable for agricultural production. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give his attention to these aspects.

Mr. Speaker, while we appreciate the effort of the hon. member for Namakwaland to answer the points raised by the hon. member for Constantia, I do not think that he has really understood the point at issue and, secondly, I do not think that he has given a particularly convincing answer. If one gets right down to the basic principle involved here as we understand it, it is the question ultimately of the right of an individual. Because we understand there are practical problems which the hon. the Minister may have in this regard, there is a temptation to say that the number of occasions on which an individual could suffer would be very small. We might easily have chosen to say without any further ado that we accept that there is this necessity and that, now and again, for the greater good, the rights of an individual must suffer. When we look at a principle like this, however, I think it is encumbent on us to examine the overall record of a Government that asks for this right. I have a serious problem in this regard because the history of this Government is such that it all too easily ignores the rights of an individual.

You are talking absolute nonsense now.

You are proving that you do not understand anything about this.

The Government very often persuades public opinion to support it on the basis that what it is doing is for the greater good. If one accepts that principle, it is fine, but I have great difficulty with that. When I look at the record of the Government I must say that on balance of probabilities they are likely to override the rights of an individual if it suits them.

Every time.

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member for Constantia said with regard to the hon. the Minister’s reply. Unless the hon. the Minister can reply to a more satisfactory degree than the hon. member for Namakwaland, I believe that at this stage the NRP also has to reserve its decision when considering the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in my reply I shall refer merely to the hon. member for Constantia because the hon. member for Berea has indicated that he has the same questions as the hon. member for Constantia. The only thing he has added to the debate is a general slap in the face of the Government. According to him the Government reveals a tendency to ignore the rights of individuals.

Well, we are dealing with a particular Bill, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you will not allow me to deal with the broad political spectrum in replying to the hon. member. I should like, however, to ask the hon. member whether he can name any instance, pertaining to the administration of the Act which we are now amending, where the accusation has ever been made that the Government has in any way whatsoever misused the powers granted by this Act. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, we must really … [Interjections.]

Order!

We must really remain within the framework of the rules of this House when we discuss a specific subject. If, therefore, there has been no complaint whatsoever, or if no accusation of any kind can be made that the Government has on any occasion abused the powers granted to it by a certain Act, it is disgraceful that such a statement should be made in this House.

As regards mineral legislation and its implementation, South Africa has a set of statutes of which we may be proud and which make us the envy of the entire Free World. People come from far and near to learn from us in this country how sound co-operation between the private sector and the Government with regard to exploitation of underground treasures may be ensured. Often one finds them sitting in a row in my office, people from America, Europe, from whatever country you could care to name. Name a country and I shall tell you that people from that country came to see me and told me what a wonderful system we had. Now the hon. member for Berea is alleging that we are disregarding the rights of individuals. I think it is disgraceful. [Interjections.]

†The hon. member for Constantia asked me some legitimate questions, in a much more constrained manner. I clearly indicated in my Second Reading introductory speech that the scope of the Act is being widened. Whereas previously we could only deal with undivided shares in terms of the powers granted by the Act, this legislation will enable us to deal with the mineral rights belonging to one individual only if such mineral rights are separated from the rights of the owner of the property itself. That is the first qualification. In other words, where one person owns both the land and the mineral rights, the legislation before us does not apply to him. It only applies to the holder of the mineral rights if a different person is the owner of the land. Secondly, the main qualification is that the person must be untraceable. We must be unable to trace his whereabouts.

*In other words, the case we want to cover is the case of a single holder of mineral rights who has disappeared and who cannot be traced by anyone. This does happen. We have such cases on record, and mineral rights remain inaccessible as a result.

But what happens if we grant prospecting rights in respect of such a person’s mineral rights. We are then giving a person the right to prospect. If he were to find something, the next section of the Act provides that the right to exploit it may only be exercised on payment of compensation. The compensation is paid to the Master. Consequently there is proper protection, so that no person will be deprived of any rights without being properly compensated for them. That is the second aspect which one must include here to be able to see the matter in its true perspective.

The hon. member also asked a question pertaining to succession, and that question was whether the date of transport of the rights is the decisive date, or is the decisive date perhaps the date of the death of the testator? It cannot be the date of transfer of rights, for if the rights are transferred there is no problem for there is a person to whom they are being transferred. Obviously that person is not missing. Then this amendment of the Act is not applicable at all. It only applies in the case of a testator who dies, and when nothing further happens for an ensuing period of two years. The period of two years is not a provision which is being inserted now. It was debated on a previous occasion and already forms part of the existing Act. All that is being inserted now is that this also affects a person who holds all the mineral rights, and not only an undivided share. Apart from that we are not changing the essence of the legislation, i.e. the legislation already authorized by Parliament. I wish to reassure hon. members on this score. The proposed new section 4(1)(b)(bb) refers to “intestate succession or any testamentary disposition”, but it also refers to the case of a person who is entitled to such a right as a result of the death of another person, or in the case where he cannot be traced in practice. Only then will it be put into operation. We would not for one moment consider examining in any way an application requesting us to grant prospecting rights in respect of the mineral rights of a known and living heir. To my mind that is absolutely out of the question. It would be completely absurd. The very first question we would put to any mining company—and this is precisely what we do in practice— when a mining company approaches us and applies for prospecting rights in terms of the present Act, and the Act as it will be amended, is: “What is your problem? Why are you unable to do so through negotiation?” If they say that they cannot trace the person concerned, we ask them: “What steps have you already taken to locate him?” Then we assess the steps which have been taken and may decide that they have not done enough to trace the heir. In that case we can tell them to take further steps. We also have certain administrative guidelines which we suggest to them. Only if we are really convinced that the person concerned really cannot be found, are we prepared to apply these provisions.

The hon. member’s third question referred to the addition to section 4(2) of the Act. That subsection is not applicable to the case relating to one person only. What the entire subsection deals with in fact—it is not stated as such in the Bill, but I am explaining it to the hon. member—is that in the case where there is more than one holder of mineral rights and there are consequently undivided shares, no directive is issued by the Minister in terms of this legislation if one person holds 50% or more of the shares and, firstly, his written consent has been obtained or, secondly, he is missing and cannot be traced. Consequently what we are dealing with here is not the question of a single person who holds all the rights.

I hope that these replies have clarified this matter sufficiently for the hon. member, and that he is satisfied. I am in a rather invidious position now. If he could give me an indication, I shall know whether I can subsequently move that we proceed with the Committee Stage. If he is not satisfied, the Committee Stage must stand over.

My objection is that the one clause is stated in an extremely complex way.

Perhaps we could, on a subsequent occasion, consider simplifying it. It seems to me however as though there is no objection to the legislation after the replies I have furnished.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I have two comments to make on this clause and specifically on the proposed new section 4(2). I believe that that subsection is so labyrinthine that it can be read in various ways. There are a large number of nouns forming the substance of this subsection, there are several verbs and there are a number of qualifying clauses. I believe that, as I attempted to do while the hon. the Minister was speaking, one can in fact simplify the provision by simply numbering or setting out sequentially the various aspects it is sought to cover. I believe, however, that the way in which it is phrased at present, defies even the most persevering sleuth from discovering exactly what is meant. With the help of the hon. the Minister (and he no doubt with the help of the experts themselves) I am now satisfied that it does mean what it says in print. However, I think it should be the aim of legislation not only to be precise, but also to be clear. I think attention could be given to the rephrasing of this clause, in a manner which enables not only us in Parliament, who are not unaccustomed to complex legislation, but also the ordinary miner, the ordinary people who administer this Act, the people who will be concerned with its workings and their rights arising from it, to understand more clearly and precisely where they stand in relation to this.

The other comment I should like to make is that the hon. the Minister has not actually replied to my question dealing with the difference between the English and the Afrikaans text, as contained in line 47 and 48, which have clearly different meanings. I think this also needs attention because the conflict of meaning between the English and Afrikaans text could in fact lead to a difference in interpretation and therefore to a conflict in reality. With these remarks I shall sit down because we have no further objection.

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

1. (1) On page 6, in line 29, to omit “only carry on” and to substitute “carry on only”;
2. (2) on page 6, in line 30, after “question” to insert “, and then only”;

I wish to comment on this very briefly by saying that we are always giving consideration to rationalizing our legislation of course. I agree that it would serve a very good purpose here to consider simplification, and I give the hon. member the undertaking that I shall give attention to this matter during the recess.

†With regard to the question of the different meanings of the English wording and the Afrikaans wording, I do not share the hon. member’s opinion, but I give him the undertaking also to look at that. I do not think that, if there is a difference, it will really make much difference in this case, but if I am advised that it can make a substantial difference I shall come back at the earliest possible opportunity to put it right. But really, to my mind it basically means the same thing, although the phraseology is idiomatically somewhat different in the one language than in the other.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong this debate, but on this last point I must just point out to the hon. the Minister that the words “whereabouts … is not readily ascertainable” are very different in meaning from saying “dat genoemde persoon nie opgespoor kan word nie”. “Not readily ascertainable” means that one cannot discover it merely by picking up a telephone book. The Afrikaans text states “nie opgespoor kan word nie”.

Yes, but you are omitting the words “dit nie geredelik verkry kan word nie”.

Yes, but those words are also stated in the English text. The English text states—

There are two “readilies” in the English text. The Afrikaans has dropped the second “geredelik”. The Afrikaans text states—

Mr. Chairman, if I can solve the problem I think it would be correct to insert a second “geredelik” in the Afrikaans text as well. I therefore move as a third amendment—