Mr. Speaker, I have already informed the House of the special debates to be held on Monday, 15 February, and Tuesday, 16 February, and also of the Railways Additional Appropriation that will be dealt with on Wednesday, 17 February.

For the rest the House will follow the Order Paper, as printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Third Reading of the Bill and are quite happy with the hon. the Minister’s explanations as to the necessity for the various amendments to the Act. However, we want to register our protest against racial clauses in the Bill, viz. clauses 29 and 30. These two clauses make provision for separate residential areas for Blacks and Whites on diggings. The difference between this side and that side of the House is a fundamental one. Our attitude is well known: We want to remove all references to race whatsoever from our Statute Book. During the past week we heard a lot about the total onslaught on this country, but with this government’s obsession about race, in that it cannot even be kept out of a Bill of this nature, lends a lot of ammunition to our enemies. Millions of South Africans are waiting for some glimmer of hope that we are in fact moving away from apartheid. The hon. the Minister replied the other day that the inclusion of clauses of this nature were mere routine. It is very clear to me that the hon. the Minister is not even thinking of removing the race restrictions from the Bill and that apartheid is in fact alive and well at the moment.

It is often said that there are only two things in life that are certain. The one is death—I am sure we will all agree about that—and the other, taxes. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Finance will convince us of the latter in the near future. Another thing that is certain is that the day will come that we will be removing clauses relating to race from our Statute Book. So we may as well make a start right now. There are plenty members on that side of the House who do in fact agree substantially with me on this.

Name one.

There are plenty of them over there who agree on this particular point, particularly when it comes to the Coloured people. There are many people who are unhappy about that on that side of the House. I just wish for once, however, that some of them would be man enough to stand up and be counted before more harm is done to our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is accusing this side of the House of allowing our obsession with race to dominate this Bill as well. The NP and the Government are not obsessed with race. That there are different peoples, and, of course, differences between peoples, is part of the reality which must be dealt with. [Interjections.] However, it is the hon. member on that side of the House who suffer from an obsession, because it is they who are obsessed with integration. They think that the problems which arise out of the existence of different peoples …

Races.

… would be solved if one were simply to say that everyone may live in Pinelands, Constantia or wherever. [Interjections.] However, that will not solve any problems. It is necessary to approach this matter sensibly, from a realistic point of view.

†I have, in reality, come to the conclusion that the Opposition is just not interested in the administration of South Africa. [Interjections.] We have had a debate on a Bill containing fairly important clauses involving a commodity that is of extreme importance to the economy of South Africa, but we have not had a substantial contribution from them about the real subject dealt with in the Bill.

But we supported that.

What they did was to make a political debate out of this issue.

You bring politics into every Bill.

Let me address myself to the specific question of residential areas. I find their insistence on mixed residential areas unacceptable. That is a point we argued yesterday. Have we not, in South Africa, reached a stage when we could at least accept the fact that, firstly, the majority of Whites find mixed residential areas, amongst other things, unacceptable and, secondly, that on the basis of ample evidence one must conclude that mixed residential areas as such are regarded as relatively unimportant by people of colour? What are important to them are factors such as the standard of housing, the availability of housing and the availability of facilities.

*It is not a question of where one lives, but how one lives. This is the main problem we have in South Africa.

Order! The hon. the Minister must please come back to the Bill.

This Bill stipulates that there should be separate residential areas, and therefore it is my view that it is not a question of where one lives or whether one lives separately. There are good reasons why it is in the interest of order that it should be so. From the point of view of the prevention of friction alone, separate residential areas make an important contribution to the maintenance of order and stability in South Africa.

Let us constructively debate the methods of improving standards of living and how we can make up the economic backlogs and improve the lot of people. Let us rather debate on how we can build happier communities. We shall implement this legislation—and this is what we must talk about in the Third Reading—in such a way that the emphasis will be on the improvement of living conditions with the establishment of new diggings, as well as the continued administration of existing residential areas around diggings. This stagnant, ideological debate concerning something which has been a fait accompli in South Africa for a long time, does not belong in legislation of this nature.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, as outlined in some detail in the Second Reading debate, we on this side of the House consider this clause to contain a considerable element of overkill. The penalties prescribed in the clause are far greater than are necessary. It has been mentioned that there is not a defined minimum penalty and that therefore the courts can use their discretion. It must, however, be accepted that the penalties provided will act as a guide-line for the court as to what sort of penalty should be imposed. To that extent it does have an effect on the sentences imposed. I think we ought also to bear in mind that there are other laws on the Statute Book that cover acts that result in public disorder or violence. Therefore the penalty for any misdemeanours of that sort need not be included in this Art at all. Accordingly I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 3, in fine 10, to omit “ten” and to substitute “one”;
2. (2) on page 3, in fine 12, to omit “five years” and to substitute “one year”.

The effect of this will be that the maximum fine will be R1 000 and the maximum prison sentence one year as opposed to five years.

Mr. Chairman, as I explained during the Second Reading, I am not prepared to accept any amendment in this regard. I spelt out my reasons for this and I do not want to take up the time of this House now by repeating them unnecessarily. However, I want to emphasize again that the severity of the proposed fine and imprisonment in the Bill is not related to the act of desecration of the symbol of State as such, but is related to the effect this could have on the dignity of the State and the instrumental effect it could have on the disturbance of law and order, on the instigation of chaos and confusion. Because the act which is being made punishable in terms of the clause could in fact impair the authority and dignity of the State and could be used to promote conflict and confusion, this indication has been given, not as a guideline on what punishment to inflict under all circumstances, but as a guideline on the degree of seriousness this House feels such an act could by implication have. It is being left to the discretion of the court, and the court must decide on the punishment applicable in a specific case. We are not prepared to make any concessions in this regard, because the authority of the State, the maintenance of order and the avoidance of conflict are matters of great importance to this side of the House. This is what we wanted to express when formulating this punishment.

Mr. Chairman, we also dwelt on this clause during Second Reading. With reference to the proposed new clause 23A(2) we in these benches feel that this provision is an unreasonable one. We feel it will affect people doing legitimate business and who are not misleading anyone. Such people will be unreasonably disadvantaged by this stipulation. Accordingly I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, our sentiments are very similar to those of the official Opposition in this respect. We have motivated our case for the hon. the Minister. We believe this is a totally unwarranted interference in private enterprise. The public are not really going to be protected by this, and are in fact being deprivated of a facility which, we believe, they should have. We will therefore be supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens.

Mr. Chairman, I replied to the objections which hon. members opposite raised in connection with this provision yesterday. I explained that, whereas they were concerned that this provision would constitute an unfair interference in the rights of people who, as it was put, dealt in family coats of arms in a light-hearted, romantic and amusing way, and interference in the rights of families who might not feel very strongly about this matter, but who would like to have something that looked more or less like a family crest, the aim of this provision was in fact not only to give heraldry as such—including the heraldry of family coats of arms—a firm foundation, but also to make it possible for those persons who wanted to deal seriously in real heraldry, to place their undertakings on acceptable, credible and probably also more lucrative foundations. I am convinced that this is how we may best serve this cause.

However, hon. members opposite also pointed out yesterday that the procedure in connection with the approval of a family coat of arms might be too cumbersome and even too expensive, and might also take too much time. I pointed out that anyone who designed a family crest could have it registered with the Heraldry Council, and then deal with it in accordance with the registration certificate issued to him.

This morning I consulted members of the Council and it would seem to me as if we might be able to give attention to this matter. Therefore, although I am not prepared to move an amendment myself at this stage, I should like to give the assurance that I shall go into the matter and shall have the desirability of making the procedure and costs for the approval of proposed family coats of arms with the Heraldry Board as simple and straightforward as possible investigated, and if there are any unfair delays or cost factors present in the procedure at this stage, I shall have them removed. I am prepared to do this because it will ensure that the matter will still be dealt with in an orderly and authoritative manner. I shall give attention to this matter as soon as possible, and if necessary I shall come back to this House. This undertaking will suffice.

Now I just want to point out that subsection (2) declares the defence of anyone who asserts that he did not expressly state that a specific family coat of arms was an authoritative family coat of arms invalid. We shall continue to declare such a defence invalid.

Who will be harmed by it?

I have already tried to explain that. What will be harmed is the prestige of family coats of arms. If it is common knowledge that this or that coat of arms is not a real coat of arms but was produced by some toy manufacturer or other to amuse people who want to be amused, the entire question of family coats of arms is debased to something of no importance, it becomes laughable and a mere child’s game. We do not want that to happen. It is important that in a country with few formal traditions, with little pageantry in its public life, we should have a serious regard for this element that achieves a certain status through the protection afforded by the Heraldry Act, namely the protection of heraldry, including the protection and guaranteeing of family coats of arms. I think it is worthwhile to give it a certain dignity. Otherwise we shall simply debase it to the status of a toy instead of making it something of importance. If we accept the amendment, we may just as well do away with the entire idea of protecting heraldic concepts, abolish the Council and say we are rationalising the council away so that toys can be produced instead of heraldry.

Mr. Chairman, firstly, may I thank the hon. the Minister for the initiative that he is going to take in investigating the cost of authenticating family crests. However, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that if we vote against this clause it will in no way detract from the established practice of being able to obtain a certificate of authenticity of a family crest. That is the procedure at the moment, it is there and it remains. I do not think that by prohibiting the commercial practice that exists at the moment in providing the buyer with perhaps not a totally authentic family crest but at least something similar— to stop this is the effect of this clause—will in any way enhance the formal procedure which already exists in the Heraldry Act. However, I should like to point out a simile to the hon. the Minister, because I think the implication of what the hon. the Minister has said, namely if we do not support this clause, is that we are in fact detracting from the formal heraldry. I should also like to refer to the application of the SABS mark on a product. There are certain manufacturers who would like to have the quality of their product formally recognized. They apply for a SABS hallmark, they get it and they sell their product according to that. But there are thousands of other products in the same category which are still marketed although they do not fulfil the same specification of the SABS. There will be a market and there will be a continuing and a growing market for family crests which have a certificate of authenticity, but there is also a market for those who do not want to go to that trouble. That is the market which we believe we should enable to survive in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have made my point. Allow me just to emphasize it again. Heraldry is not like an ordinary product which you either buy or do not buy. Its value depends on the image the general public has of heraldry. The validity of fake or doubtful pieces of heraldry or quasiheraldry will, therefore, harm its general public image, will harm those people who should like to make use of it, and will also harm the dealer who seriously wants to make a living out of it. [Interjections.] It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, as if those hon. members just do not want to understand me.

A further point I should like to make is that as regards the onus of proof contained in this subsection, the matter has been thoroughly discussed with the chairman of the Heraldry Council who, as hon. members know, is a Supreme Court judge. In view of the practical experience his council has had over the years in connection with the application of the Act as it stands, he requested that this provision be included, for otherwise it would be extremely difficult to apply control in practice. I therefore want to move that the clause be passed as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, again as outlined during the Second Reading debate, we consider this a case of overkill in regard to the offence referred to in a previous clause. It is important to bear in mind in this respect that it is the policy of the Government to make the majority of residents of this country foreigners. In due course this provision will apply to millions of people who are citizens of Transkei, Ciskei, Venda etc. It will also apply to other categories of persons who are now foreigners. We think this is quite unnecessary and accordingly we shall oppose the clause.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the exposition I provided last night by explaining further. By accepting the proposed amendment relating to free education in the National Education Policy Act, we are only really taking the first step towards a possible revision of this policy. The step we are taking is to amend the principle as laid down in the Act. As I explained, the second step which is to follow that, is that the various educational bodies, namely the Committee of Heads of Education, the Administrators and the National Education Council must consider how the policy will eventually be adjusted in accordance with this principle. When the principle has been adjusted in terms of their proposals by notice in the Gazette by the Minister of National Education, a third phase will follow when the Committee of Heads of Education agrees on how that policy may be implemented on a co-ordinated basis. Therefore, when we accept this Bill we have only the acceptance of a new principle for the authorization of free education in place of the existing obligation. Then the policy as to how precisely this principle is to be carried out still has to be worked out by the bodies I have just mentioned. Consideration will also be given to whether there are certain aspects for which parents must make a direct financial contribution, on what basis such contribution will be made and what the extent of the contribution will be. These are matters which will then be worked out by the educational bodies concerned. In working this out they will undoubtedly take full cognizance of the recommendations of and the in-depth study carried out by the CSIR under the guidance of Prof. De Lange, relating to provision of education for the future.

Due to misunderstanding which have cropped up here and there I should like to stress that the proposed amendment of the Act by this new definition of principle does not prohibit free education. It only means that all education does not have to be free. Therefore—and I want to stress this—free education is not being removed from the Statute Book. It is only the compulsory provision which is being converted into an empowering provision.

I should also like to refer to a matter about which, to my amazement, great dissatisfaction has prevailed. I refer to my announcement at the end of my Second Reading speech that unfortunately a printing error had slipped into the English text of the Bill before us. The words “including books and stationery” were not placed between square brackets to indicate that they were to be deleted. However, in the Afrikaans text it is clear that the words “met inbegrip van boeke en skryfbehoeftes” are between square brackets and that it is therefore the intention that they be deleted. I therefore just wish to state clearly that the Afrikaans text is the correct one. The deletion of the reference to a specific aspect of education, in this instance books and stationery, is necessary because with an empowering rather than a compulsory provision concerning free education, it is no longer necessary to single out specific aspects of education and detail them in the provisions relating to principles. Since a misunderstanding occurred in certain reports concerning yesterday’s debate on this matter I also wish to state clearly that the deletion of the reference to books and stationery did not mean ipso facto that books and stationery are now to be excluded from free education without further ado. The general provision authorizing the continued provision of free education still applies in principle to books and stationery. The educational authorities concerned will have to consider whether they wish to recommend to the Minister that the policy as regards the extent to which books and stationery are provided free, should be amended or not. However, a financial contribution may now be required from parents in respect of books and stationery, as in respect of other aspects of education.

This also applies to the inserted words “primêre en sekondêre” or, as in the English text, “primary and secondary”, concerning which hon. members on the other side of the House asked a question. The insertion of “primary and secondary” in that text therefore implies that in regard to specific categories of primary and secondary pupils, too, the Minister may provide that certain aspects of education need not be totally free. Therefore this is only an empowering provision, and the matter will have to be duly considered by the bodies which are to advise the Minister in this regard.

I should like to deal with the considerations that motivated the bodies which recommended this amendment to the National Education Policy Act to the Government. In the first place, I want to stress that in this regard I have already obtained the support of my own colleagues on this side of the House who spelt out the motivation to us very clearly. In his speech the hon. member for Virginia stressed that the amendment is based on educational principles. He referred to the importance of parent involvement, of the partnership between the State and parents and of other educational principles. Other hon. members on this side of the House have also stressed that this is a matter of principle.

The first point at issue is that education in schools, formal education, is not the sole responsibility of the State but that in accordance with a sound educational approach, it is the joint responsibility of the State together with the parents and the community. Although the financial contribution made by the State to education is overwhelming and by far the most important, it is educationally sound that the parent and the community should also be involved, the community, for example, by way of the local environment and organizations, such as the church, which has a determining influence on education. It is also striking that the CSIR report on education, which in fact came as a subsequent confirmation of the standpoint of educationists who recommended this amendment to the Government, stresses the need for a greater say and greater responsibility in the educational system on the part of the parents and the local community. The approach of the Government, which is strongly advocated by the educational bodies—there is no difference of opinion among them on this score—is that the issue here is a partnership between the State, which makes by far the greatest contribution, and the parents, the local community, and the cultural community, which ought to be jointly involved.

In the second place, this amendment is also justified on an educational basis in that the receiver of education who pays something for it directly, will be far more aware of the value of what he receives. If it is expected of the receiver of education, apart from his indirect contribution to his education, for example through the tax that he pays as a tax-payer, to contribute something directly, he will have a better appreciation of education. If one pays for education just as one pays for anything else, one appreciates it more. When one pays for something, one realizes its true value. Nowadays, unfortunately, some of our people underestimate not only the value but also the real cost of education, because in practice it is regarded as a kind of free service. When one pays for one’s education one also appreciates one’s joint responsibility and will want to contribute something towards improving the service for which one is paying, for example by consulting together and in other ways becoming genuinely involved in its promotion.

There can be little doubt—and this, too, is the standpoint of the educational bodies which advised the Government in this regard—that it would result in greater respect on everyone’s part for, in the first place, the value of education if a direct financial contribution, however small, and in respect of however limited a part of education, were to be required from the parents and perhaps from the local community as well. There would also be greater respect for the buildings and physical facilities and for the books and other equipment made available, and there would also be greater respect for the teacher, and this is very important. One of the reasons for the inadequate respect shown to that important profession, the teaching profession, by certain sections of our community, is the fact that the educational service is free to everyone and is therefore taken for granted because the people do not contribute anything themselves towards this important service rendered to them by the teachers. There are therefore sound educational reasons for accepting the proposed amendment.

At the beginning of my speech I explained that the initiative giving rise to this amendment did not emanate from the recommendations of the De Lange report. However, I can only quote certain important findings from the report to indicate that the considerations that motivated us to introduce this Bill were subsequently confirmed by the De Lange Report. In the first place I should like to refer to the sixth principle of the provision of education spelt out in the De Lange report and accepted by the Government together with the other principles. It reads as follows—

Therefore, as far as the promotion of involvement and joint responsibility of the parents and community are concerned, the amendment to abolish totally free education is in accordance with this important principle as laid down by the De Lange Report. Indeed, I do not think we shall begin to be able to do justice to the De Lange report before the proposed amendment has been accepted. Then, too, I wish to quote from page 102 of the De Lange report, in which the following is pointed out in respect of free education—

On the same page we also read the following—

For this reason it is now being proposed that not only pre-primary but also primary and secondary pupils in specific categories may be excluded from totally free education. This is in accordance with the spirit of this report. I also wish to refer to pages 115 and 116 of the report in which reference is made to post-basic education. First the junior intermediate phase, which today follows immediately after the primary school phase, is dealt with, and then the report states the following—

Then a number of reasons are quoted in the report. One is that if the State were to provide all education free of charge up to the end of the traditional school phase, viz. Std. 10, it would be inevitable that provision would have to be restricted at some point because the task would simply be too great. It also considered that in some respects the norms applied at the moment are too luxurious and that a judicious adjustment of the norms need in no way detract from the quality of the education.

However, something else is added in the report. The most important reason advanced by the De Lange Report in this regard as to why it considers that some contribution must be required from the parents is that the committee regards it as educationally unsound that education should be entirely free. The committee then furnished fuller motivation for this based on the statement that free books are the best example of the child’s experience of free education. Various other spheres in which possible savings could be effected are mentioned, methods whereby the general principle of free education could be adapted. Such areas are for example, those of differentiated school fees, the exclusion of certain non-essential facilities or the communal use of certain facilities by more than one school, or by the school and the community. In summing up, the report states on page 117—

Therefore the considerations that motivated the Government to decide on this amending Bill even before the De Lange Committee had been appointed, are confirmed in remarkable fashion by the statements quoted here from the De Lange report.

Next I should like to dwell briefly on a few remarks made by certain hon. members. In the first place, I want to convey my sincere thanks to my four hon. colleagues on this side of the House for their contributions. I have already referred to the emphasis placed by the hon. member for Virginia on the educational principles at issue here. I also listened very appreciatively to the reference by the hon. member for Brentwood to the days of hardship which the Whites, too, experienced at an earlier stage in his own education. At this point I should also like to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville, who denied that at the time of hardship, before totally free education was introduced, education was not free in all respects. During that time of hardship to which the hon. member for Brentwood referred, parents who were far more needy than parents are today, had to make considerably greater contributions to the education of their children. I believe, too, that in this regard the hon. member for Brentwood raised another very important principle. It is that one of the background considerations against which one should view this amending Bill is the fact that nowadays the Whites are also in a far more favourable socio-economic position than they were at the time when this compulsory free education was introduced. Indeed, nowadays he too can afford to make a contribution. It is true that in certain exceptional cases adjustments will have to be made. However, I contend that this also applies to non-White education. We note that in many respects, the non-White, despite his backward socioeconomic position in comparison with that of the Whites, is nevertheless making enormous strides. Without committing myself in any respect in this regard I do think that when consideration is given to the introduction of a contribution on the part of parents or the community, account will have to be taken inter alia of the general socio-economic position of the community in question and therefore of their ability to make a contribution. Therefore a contribution must not simply be required from everyone on an undifferentiated basis regardless of the socioeconomic position of the community.

Since, in the second place, it is the stated policy of the Government to move from the existing relatively less favourable educational position with regard to the various non-White population groups, towards one in which there are equal opportunities and equal standards for all, it is surely also logical that when the new policy on free education is worked out, and consideration given to the extent to which this may also apply to other population groups, account should be taken of the question of the extent to which the population group in question has progressed towards this ideal of parity as regards its education. I believe it would be unfair to require a population group which is still a long way from parity to make a contribution on the same basis as a population group which had already achieved a very high level of provision of education services.

Therefore the two important points on which the hon. member for Yeoville attacked us, are totally invalid. The hon. member contends inter alia that the situation here is supposedly that the Whites now begrudge the other population groups what they have always demanded for themselves at a stage when they want to move in the direction of education of equal quality. This allegation of his is totally lacking in substance and is totally unfounded. The same goes for his allegation that there will be a drop in educational standards, which is simply untrue.

As various speakers on this side, particularly the hon. member for Standerton, have strongly emphasized, this side of the House is profoundly aware of the importance of education because it has built up experience of education. The hon. member for Standerton said that a large number of hon. members on this side of the House had practical experience of education, and the hon. members opposite who lacked that experience entirely should not regard us with suspicion. This side of the House is aware of the significance of education. This side of the House realizes that this country cannot afford any drop in the quality of the education of any population group. We cannot assist people to progress at the expense of the quality of education already achieved in other communities. We must achieve this progress without causing any deterioration or drop in quality and standards.

I should also like to refer to the remark by the hon. member for Rissik that this side of the House is not ashamed, nor does it feel guilty about its record in regard to the promotion of educational opportunities for the other population groups. I also wish to refer to a remark by the hon. member for Gardens when he compared the percentage of total State expenditure spent on education between the years 1973 and 1979. On that basis he contended that it indicated a deteriorating situation. However, he failed to mention two facts. The first is that between those two dates a major and drastic change took place in our security situation as a result of the collapse of the Portuguese empire in Africa and the growing threat on our borders which has entailed a considerable increase in our defence expenditure, which in turn has meant a new rate of expenditure not only on education, but also on various other sectors, as a proportion of the total expenditure in the country of moneys derived from taxation. In this regard, therefore, one cannot simply look at education per se; one also has to see the situation in respect of education in the context of all the other votes. What is more, I am convinced that the choice of the year 1979 for comparison was deliberate, because in 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982 there have been spectacular increases in the amounts made available for the promotion of Black education, particularly in the budget of the hon. the Minister of Education and Training; indeed, there has been an increase of more than 100% over only three financial years. I think that is a record in the expansion of any service for which this House has to vote funds. Therefore the hon. member for Rissik was right when he said that while this side of the House recognizes that there is still a long way to go, that while there is still a considerable backlog to be made up in regard to the educational services for all population groups, we on this side of the House have no reason to be ashamed or to feel guilty.

†I should also like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens where he quoted from the preliminary memorandum on the De Lange report in which the Government undertook to take no decisions before the comments of all interested parties had been received, with a target date of 31 March. I think I have adequately dealt with that point by explaining that the whole initiative for this Bill virtually terminated six months before the De Lange committee was even appointed and that this was an inactive in no way directly related to the work of the De Lange committee.

Why did it take so long to come to Parliament?

We should have introduced the matter here last year if we had had a normal session. It was on the list, but purely as a result of the curtailment of the session it was not possible to have it passed. Therefore there was no difficulty in that regard. There are various other Acts, also of urgent importance, which had to stand over. That hon. member knows that as well as I do. He knows that full well.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to refer to the passage quoted by the hon. member for Yeoville from a very interesting and important study by Prof. Lombard published in the Mercabank report, viz. that if we were to maintain a growth rate of 4,5% up to the end of the century, then out of the extra revenue this country would generate from that growth rate, we should be in a position to pay for a programme which would strive for and achieve education of equal quality for all population groups. I am very pleased that the hon. member quoted from that article. In fact, that article also argues that we shall be in a position to implement a housing programme, too, even a housing programme of considerably higher quality housing, and almost to double the average expenditure on food by the urban Blacks in terms of the ratio of this figure to the expenditure by Whites. Nevertheless, the fact that we have had a model worked out by economists indicating that due to economic growth we shall indeed be able to afford the almost astronomical expenditure on a programme to achieve educational parity, gives us no reason to be different and reckless at this point with regard to the amounts we allocate to education. From now on we shall simply have to act with great circumspection and economy so that on the one hand we may strive to achieve the quality of education we have achieved in the past and want to achieve in the future and, on the other hand, to avoid the kind of luxury and—to use the expression of the hon. member for Umbilo—to avoid the Rolls Royce type of education for certain population groups. In that regard it is also necessary to take into account parental involvement in the financing of education, however small their financial contribution may be. We cannot, on the basis of the prognosis quoted, simply approve any degree of educational expenditure in the future.

†I should also like to refer to a point raised by the hon. member for Umbilo in asking whether the Indian and Coloured education authorities had been consulted. I should like to make this point very clear because there seems to be some misunderstanding in this regard. This Act dealing with education policy applies only to White education. Therefore there was no consultation with the Indian and Coloured education authorities. Obviously, if there is any change in the policy as a result of the change of principle to be introduced into the Act, this will have to be done after close consultation with the Indian and Coloured departments.

In the second place the hon. member for Umbilo asked me whether I had any examples of contributions required from parents in Western countries. He actually said that we would be laughed out of court by Western countries. I have a few examples here. In the United Kingdom, while books and stationery are provided free, sports apparatus and sports facilities have to be provided by the parents. In Israel parents pay for the books. In the Netherlands, in the primary and secondary phases, parents pay according to a means test. They also have to pay for all travelling expenses, books and study material. In Switzerland all education in respect of the compulsory phase of education is free, and that is only up to the 15th year of age. In Belgium pre-primary and primary education is free but after the primary phase parents have to pay for books. In the United States there is quite a variety of systems. In many cases where the schools purchase books out of school funds, the parents hire the books from the schools. There are also further examples that one could give in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I believe that the hon. the Minister has misrepresented the question I asked him. I did not make a point that there were no other countries that called for contributions towards education. I was talking about countries that had moved from the principle of free and compulsory education.

I did not use any other expression.

If I misunderstood the hon. member, I tender my apologies. The point I want to make, however, is that the issue of free education was handled a bit haphazardly in the course of this debate. When the hon. member used the word “free”, I understood him to mean “totally free”. In reply to that, I wanted to point out that in several Western countries a certain contribution, albeit for a limited aspect of education, is expected from parents.

A third important question was asked by the hon. member in his otherwise very practical and useful speech. He suggested that we should decrease the number of education departments. Where does he want to start? We have five different education departments for Whites and we have one each for the other population groups. Where exactly must we start? Must we start by eliminating the provincial departments of education? In view of the hon. member’s former political career I do not think that he will give unqualified support for such a possibility. If, therefore, we want to talk about the number of education departments, we must be careful about what exactly we mean.

I should like to conclude. Once again I thank all the hon. members for their contributions to the debate. Finally I should like to emphasize that here we have to deal with free education in the sense of an empowering rather than a compulsory provision in the legislation. By “free education” we mean that parents could be called upon to make some kind of contribution to a limited part of the education service offered to their children. I should like to make it quite clear again that by the acceptance of this principle we have not thrown free education overboard, but we are only the opening door for a negotiated change in the policy so that some limited contribution from the parents could be called for.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposed amendments contain only a few new principles, while the other amendments are merely of a technical nature.

The definition of “special education” is being amended to make provision as well for the guidance of parents with a view to the education, training and treatment of their handicapped children. Such guidance will mainly be given to the parents of pre-school children, i.e. children who are not yet subject to compulsory school attendance. The sooner the guidance of parents commences, the more favourable the eventual prognosis may be and the more successfully the child may be able to cope with his handicap. In certain other countries such timeous action is already an established practice. No great amount of additional expenditure for rendering this service is foreseen at present, since the existing accommodation and staff will, for the most part, be used. In addition the principal Act is being amended to empower the Minister of National Education to divest himself of the obligation to conduct examinations in respect of courses at private vocational schools. The reason for this is that a private vocational school is, in terms of the principal Act, registered by the Administrators of the provinces, and that the education authorities deem it desirable that such examinations should only be conducted by the provincial education authorities under whose jurisdiction the private vocational schools fall.

†The Minister is further empowered to make rules as to the conditions or requirements to be complied with by any candidate in order to qualify for any national examination, as well as rules regarding the conducting of examinations. The principal Act at present empowers the Minister to make regulations regarding these matters, but in view of the great number of examinations and regulations involved, it is proposed that rules rather than regulations be made so that it would be possible for the Minister to delegate his power to the Director-General or any other senior officer of the department.

It is also proposed to make the provisions in the principal Act relating to the registration of private schools more effective. Registration is at present limited to certain bodies providing special education, commercial education and education in a designated trade. Various bodies providing other education have applied for registration. In view of these requests, and as it is deemed necessary, in order to maintain standards, that bodies providing instruction and training in subjects with contents similar to those prescribed for certain other national examinations, should also be required to register, it is proposed to amend the provisions of the principal Act to include certain post-school education in a subject or subjects designated by the Minister from time to time by notice in the Gazette.

*I should also like to mention an amendment which has a bearing on the control of the money matters of subsidized schools. Although the subsidized schools at present submit audited statements at the request of my department, it is being proposed that provisions in this regard be inserted in the principal Act with a view to facilitating matters, so that the submission of statements no longer occurs only on request.

In order to alleviate the task of the Minister, and to give the Director-General greater responsibility, provision is also being made for certain further powers to be delegated by the Minister in terms of the principal Act.

In conclusion, I should like to point out that further amendments contained in the Bill, result for the most part from changes which were effected to designations, as well as the abolition of the Senate.

I should also like to add that part of a sentence was omitted in the English version of the long title of the Bill. After the seventh line the words: “make rules with respect to certain national examinations” should be inserted. However, this does not change the essence of the legislation in any way.

Mr. Speaker, we shall be supporting this Bill. We particularly welcome the guidance that is to be given to parents of handicapped children, because we consider this likely to be of great help to both the children and the parents. We hope that this guidance will become available as soon as possible and that the parents involved will make extensive use of it.

The other changes that are recommended have our support. We shall accordingly be supporting this Bill in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, it was very kind of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens to support this legislation in such a positive manner, especially after we had had a few problems with the official Opposition yesterday afternoon. We therefore thank the official Opposition for their support.

I should also very much like to support this amendment Bill which we now have before us. I want to concentrate mainly on the definitions of certain words and concepts as we find them in the legislation. I want to refer to clause 1(a) which substitutes the words “subsidized school” for “institution”. This is important to me. It is important in the sense that it is obviously a more acceptable term or description. It is indeed meaningful and clearly defining. It tells us clearly that the State gives its direct support to centres and schools which fall under this legislation.

The list of names of the institutions which fall under this Act, is truly impressive. There are for example the technical colleges, of which there are 28. There is the vocational training centre for adults at Westlake. There is also the merchant navy training academy at Granger Bay. There are 42 technical institutes or State subsidized schools. Then there are also training colleges for teachers, of which the Witwatersrand Training College is mentioned. And so one could continue. I should like to concentrate for a while on the subsidized special schools of which there are 24, and which also fall under this legislation. This is indeed an impressive list. There are 165 of these institutions in all. One realizes, and immediately has great appreciation for the tremendous task which is being carried out by the officials of the department to ensure that order is maintained in these schools and centres. One also understands immediately that Parliament should certainly vote considerable amounts to meet the needs of these schools and centres. I shall have a little more to say about this later on.

Although the State is responsible for the establishment of the infrastructure, the maintenance, the payment of salaries, etc., I should like to advocate that there be greater community involvement and support, financial and otherwise, specifically with regard to these special schools. This will contribute to these schools, which also want to be clearly defined on the map of educational institutions, being able to hold their own more easily.

I should like to refer next to another concept, viz. “special education” which, as the designation indicates, also means that special measures, including special financial measures, would have to be adopted in order to meet the specific needs of these institutions. Only then will we be able to guarantee the best results. That is why we have the special measure to which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and the hon. the Minister referred, i.e. that the parent, and more specifically, the parent of the pre-school child, will be involved in obtaining guidance. Obviously it is a very good thing that this matter should receive attention. It is very clear therefore that there is understanding of the fact that an early diagnosis, the ability to come to grips with such a problem as early as possible, and also the correct placement of such a child in the correct school context, should receive the necessary attention.

The hon. the Minister stated that guidance for the parent, which is under discussion here, would be provided with the aid of existing institutions and the existing staff. This will mean that an even greater responsibility will rest on the staff than is already the case at present. Furthermore, it will make exceptionally heavy demands on the existing facilities. As far as facilities are concerned we must see to it—and when I say “we”, I mean the State through Parliament, as well as the community—that we create the most favourable environment for the children involved. We must see to it that those children lack nothing but that which makes them handicapped. In this regard, I am thinking for example of children in reformatories. Because of circumstances, these children have been left with impressions which have to be erased by the creation of the most favourable environment and circumstances possible.

There are many people involved in the day-to-day activities of these children, inter alia the matron, housekeepers, office staff, teachers and even the maintenance staff on the school grounds. These are all people who carry a heavy burden. They are performing a task which we perhaps do not always understand fully, because they are not always in the limelight as are certain teachers or people who are active in schools where there are many pupils who excel on the sports fields, or who are in the limelight as a result of academic achievements, etc. These are people, however, who are surely entitled to conveniences, so that they can accomplish the most difficult of all tasks more easily in more comfortable circumstances. These people, from the matrons to the teachers, are moulding youngsters who lack something, youngsters who are less fortunate than many others and who would also like to find a place in society. Then, too, it is specifically the parents of those children who look forward to their children fitting into the pattern of useful people which we need so badly. We must therefore look after the people who take care of these children. We must see to it that they have everything necessary so that they can carry out this exacting task.

It gives me great pleasure to support the Bill.

Firstly, I just want to say that we in this party associate ourselves wholeheartedly with the words of the hon. member for Rustenburg, and particularly his praise of the staff of this particular educational body. We can well be thankful that there are still people who are so loyal to their profession. They are doing wonderful work with those handicapped people.

†We in these benches will also be supporting the Bill in its entirety, without any amendment. I should, however, want to discuss one or two aspects of the Bill with the hon. the Minister. In the first place I want to state that we also welcome the provisions made with a view to providing guidance to the parents of handicapped children. I should like, however, to ask the hon. the Minister whether this guidance which is envisaged will in fact be provided by a specialized unit which will provide services to a number of different institutions, or whether it is intended that each institution will have its own specialist member of staff. The reason I ask this is because of the very considerable shortage of teachers who are also registered as counselling psychologists— which they have to be—with the Medical and Dental Council. To put it in another way, I should like to know whether they are fully registered with the professional board for psychology. These are obviously the people the hon. the Minister has in mind, the people who will have to undertake the guidance of the parents of handicapped children. I believe this is absolutely essential. It is imperative and every effort should be made to encourage more teachers to undertake counselling as a career.

A prerequisite for becoming a counselling psychologist is, of course, a formal teaching qualification. I believe the hon. the Minister is now providing a new avenue, a relatively new avenue, for careers for these people. We should like to see the department of the hon. the Minister doing everything possible to provide the personnel to undertake this important function, otherwise the provisions contained in the Bill, pertaining to this particular aspect, will of course, come to nought. It will come to nought because the service will not be able to be provided owing to a lack of staff. The answer to this, we believe, is to have—and the hon. the Minister can tell us about this—for instance in a centre such as Durban, one unit of guidance psychologists who will then provide service to the various institutions; if not in Natal, then at least in Durban.

I should also like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the provisions of this legislation relate very specifically to schools for handicapped children—special schools and remedial schools—and that here there is a tremendous shortage of infrastructure as well. I can speak with authority regarding the position in Natal, where we have exactly one institution which provides special education for mentally retarded children. It currently caters for some 150 pupils, many of whom are housed in the boarding establishments. The demand in Natal, however, is for at least double, if not treble, that facility. I know that the hon. the Minister’s department has made some R2 million available for a new school to be built in my constituency, in Durban North. We still believe, however, that there is a considerably greater need for more facilities in Natal in particular. And I am referring now to the White population group only. Heaven only knows what the requirements are in respect of the Black population group.

Then, we should also like to welcome the tightening up of registration of private educational institutions. The abuse that occurred in the past is of course legend. There were people who claimed that they had certain qualifications. Every Jack Tar could open a school if he was unsuccessful in any other occupation or business. It reminds one of the old idiom which says that those who do not know how try to teach. We found many people who were totally unqualified and unsuited for the job opening their own private educational institutions, resulting in the quality of education provided to the clientele to suffer quite considerably. We certainly welcome this provision. We recently had a number of instances in Natal in which people claimed to have qualifications. When they were put to the test, however, it was found that they not only did not have the qualifications to teach, but that they had also never had any experience of teaching at all.

Finally I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that we believe that the provisions in this legislation are very important indeed. Therefore the NRP will be giving it its wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, the hon. member for Rustenburg and the hon. member for Durban North for their positive approach to the present legislation. I should like to associate myself in general with what they said by emphasizing what a privilege it is to be head of a department which does not only offer conventional education, but which in fact offers education in an exciting diversity of fields: Technical education, education in schools of industries and reformatories, which means education for underprivileged children, as well as the tremendous diversity of special education for handicapped children. It is also my heart-felt desire to express my gratitude for the words of appreciation which were addressed to the staff who shoulder a heavy burden at these schools, who often have to deal with difficult pupils, pupils in tragic circumstances; and who are understandably under a great strain in the accomplishment of their educational task.

I am also especially grateful that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, as well as the hon. member for Durban North referred to the importance of guidance. Many of our school curricula would be rendered useless if we did not have proper, truly professional and qualified guidance to assist the children in their studies and choices of career. I should, however, like to explain that the guidance we are dealing with here, actually has a specific bearing on the guidance, not of the pupils, but of the parents. Up to now we have been limited to the guidance of the pupils only, but we feel that parents play such an important supplementary role, especially with handicapped pupils, that they should also be involved.

†It is appreciated that there are considerable problems due to the lack of a sufficient number of people who are qualified to do guidance work, but I should like to give the assurance that in all cases, especially in regard to handicapped children, the guidance is done on an interdisciplinary team basis, and that interdisciplinary team has a kernel of people who are working in a full-time capacity at the school concerned, but they are also supplemented by part-time people whose services are used on a regional basis to operate also at some other schools. As far as possible we also try to share this expertise between different departments with schools in the same region, although I am sure that this aspect could be still further improved.

*I am also very grateful that the hon. member for Durban North referred to the importance of the phasing out of unqualified teachers, especially when it comes to this difficult, specialized education for handicapped children, where one cannot afford to have half-trained and ill-trained people doing the work. These people would fall into the same category as those who make family coats of arms without being properly qualified.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The compulsory deposit of publications by publishers in certain libraries in South Africa officially came into effect when the Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Copyright Act was passed in 1916. In terms of section 150 of this Act, the privilege of legal deposit was granted to one library in each of the four provincial capitals. Section 1 of the Copyright Amendment Act, 1950 (Act 22 of 1950), also granted this privilege to the Library of Parliament in Cape Town. When South Africa became a Republic in 1961, a new dispensation with regard to legal deposits was ushered in by passing the Copyright Act, 1965 (Act 63 of 1965), more specifically section 46 of this Act. Gradually the need arose for regulating the deposit of publications by publishers in a more satisfactory way and for imposing obligations on these legal deposit libraries as well, as a quid pro quo.

†The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the establishment and maintenance of a national collection of material which reflects cultural and scientific activities in the RSA and the preservation and retrieval thereof for study and research purposes with a view to enriching the life of the inhabitants of the country in cultural and scientific respects.

*The measure that is being proposed, is not as some people think, aimed at augmenting the supplies to certain libraries free of charge. In order to prevent an unreasonable burden being placed upon publishers, the compulsory provision of copies of publications to certain libraries has been restricted to the minimum. It is specifically stated to which publications the provisions of the Bill apply and which publications are excluded from the application of the provisions of the Bill. Provision is also being made in certain cases for exemption from the obligation of supplying free copies of publications to certain libraries. Furthermore, the Bill contains measures with regard to the practical application of provisions that regulate the supply, exemption and exclusion of publications. I am referring here to the provisions dealing with failure to supply, offences and proof of certain facts.

As a quid pro quo, certain obligations are being imposed on the libraries concerned with regard to the accession, classification, cataloguing, preservation, maintenance of and access to copies of publications that are supplied to them free of charge. It is being proposed in this regard that, in the case of default on the part of libraries, the Minister should be empowered to exempt publishers from the obligation of supplying free copies of publications to those libraries.

†The Bill also provides for the compilation and publishing of a South African National Bibliography of publications with a view to providing in the RSA and internationally bibliographical information on the publications of the RSA including statistical data. This bibliography is not a new venture but has been compiled and published by the State Library for some years now.

*For the rest, the Bill deals with provisions in regard to binding the State, the delegation of powers and the repeal of certain provisions of the Copyright Act, 1965 (Act 63 of 1965).

Mr. Speaker, this Bill clarifies the question of the compulsory submission of publications by defining and combining this concept in a single piece of controlling legislation. One might think that it is a little wide, particularly in terms of clause 2(1)(c) as well as the definition of publications, which include pamphlets and brochures. However, I am certain that the librarians will quickly be able to get rid of the Readers’ Digest type flood of pamphlets and brochures by applying the exemption clause, clause 3. From our consultations with librarians it appeared that they, too, were satisfied with this measure. Consequently we shall support this Bill through all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this Bill has met with such general support. The hon. the Minister set out the position for us very clearly. It involves legal deposit copies where a copy of the work of an author, printer or publisher has to be presented in accordance with the provisions of the Act to a library or other body, in this case more specifically to certain libraries.

There are a few questions which one always asks oneself when this obligation exists. What is the purpose and function of legal deposit in South Africa? Another question which arises is: Is there not sometimes a lack of volition as regards the implications of the obligation to furnish copies and do the depositor as well as the librarian have a clear picture in regard to this matter?

One should also ask whether the Provincial Administrations also have any obligations—financial obligations—in this respect towards the libraries. Does each library adopt its own procedure, or are the activities co-ordinated? As far as I could ascertain, there is the Dewey system which is fairly general, but one should also like to see a measure of co-ordination. One might also ask whether there is a lack of a defined and accepted concept of the functions of legal deposit of publications and whether there is a shortage of funds to carry out the task which the library is required to perform in its own way. Another question is whether there is sufficient space in the libraries when these legal deposit copies are received. Is the necessary trained staff available? We who are acquainted with the newspaper industry know that not all the newspapers are bound. Frequently the newspapers are wrapped in paper and the question which now arises is whether those newspapers, if they are left in that state, will not eventually deteriorate, which would lead to severe losses as far as those publications are concerned.

One of the important reasons for legal deposit is the compilation of a national bibliography. After all, it should be the purpose in this country to introduce the literature of this country to the public and at the same time make sure that the hundreds of inquiries which are constantly being received by libraries from booksellers, researchers and other libraries can be answered.

Questions are also frequently asked by scholars and students on what books have been written on certain subjects. Frequently it is also asked who the author of a certain book is, from what publisher the book can be obtained and when the book was published. Another question which is frequently asked is what other books have been written by a certain author.

If one does not have an efficient bibliography, hours of precious time are wasted in tracing such data, and research is delayed. In this connection one thinks of Dr. P. J. Nienaber’s bibliography of Afrikaans books. It contains an alphabetical list of Dutch and Afrikaans books published in South Africa since 1861. The books in this list have been codified according to authors and full biographical details have also been furnished. One also thinks of Mendelssohn’s South African Bibliography which is an important work of reference in this Parliament dealing with the period prior to 1910. Information on books written in other countries but dealing with South Africa has also been included in this bibliography.

Another question which arises is to what extent material has also been recorded on microfilm.

We are pleased that the British American Point System is being adopted, which entails that ordinary as well as large type has to be based on 14 points. I think this is fairly generally accepted by publishers. Reprints must also have a very clear typographical appearance which has been standardized throughout. It is also a good thing that the ISBN codification has been adopted. In fact, every Bill which appears before us has an ISBN number. The fact that such numbers appear on every publication facilitates the computerization of titles and also entails that publications can be traced more rapidly. In addition it contributes to fewer errors occurring in the data.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister could reply to this question, which was put to me by publishers: Cannot the number of compulsory copies be expanded in such a way that this will also apply to provincial libraries? I was told that before the province is able to make purchases, four copies of the book in question have to be sent to the provincial libraries.

I believe that exceptions are also made in the case of de luxe editions bound in leather and with only a limited number of copies available. I think it is a good thing that it is not necessary to furnish so many copies of books and other publications that have been bound in leather, since the costs are so high.

It is a proud and wonderful occasion for us to support this Bill. In this way South Africa’s proud publications now become part of the history of world literature, a history extending over five centuries, and our own history becomes, through these volumes, a part of our national cultural heritage. We gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for clarification regarding clause 1(1)(vii), in which a publication is defined, read in relation to clause 2(1)(c). I think it is very important that we should have clarity on what the hon. the Minister intends with these two specific aspects of the Bill.

Clause 1(1)(vii)(a), (b) and (c) indicates that a “publication” means inter alia “a printed book, newspaper, magazine, periodical, journal, pamphlet, brochure, sheet, card or portion thereof or any other similar printed matter”. Paragraphs (b) and (c) deal more specifically with replacement components and microfilms. Clause 2(1) provides—

Normally this is a period of 30 days—

The clause then stipulates the applicable conditions, and here I should like to quote paragraph (c)—

This is going to cause considerable confusion in the minds of people who produce what is, in terms of the Bill, a publication. Obviously it does not include unsolicited material which is sent to the public, such as Reader’s Digest circulars and publications regarding swimming pool chemicals, etc. I assume anything of this nature which is sent to the public by way of public relations or by way of advertising material is excluded by this definition.

There are also some marginal cases of unsolicited material, because certain members of the public may request to be supplied with such information. I think here for example of the material of political parties or of a booklet about the history of education in South Africa which may be a factual document but is sent out as an unsolicited document to a vast number of people. This may be a booklet dealing with political party’s policy. A number of people may also write and request to be supplied therewith. Publications by the Department of Information, such as S.A. Digest or the South African Year-book, as well as the illustrated books by the Department of Community Development and others, are all unsolicited. However, somehow they would probably be included under the type of publication which would have to be lodged with the legal deposit libraries. I want the hon. the Minister to pay particular attention to this problem which the public and the publishers will have in trying to determine what publications should be sent to these libraries. It could well be that the interpretation of the publisher is as wide as the definition is and that by ignorance the publishing company may decide not to send a copy to the libraries thus rendering themselves technically guilty of a contravention of the Act. I want the hon. the Minister to give us his views on the interpretation of these two clauses read jointly.

Other than that we have no difficulty with the Bill. We believe it is essential in the interests of the historical, cultural, political, social and economic development of South Africa that a store of knowledge be kept for the nation. We will therefore support the Bill through all the stages.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members who have pledged their support for this Bill. This Bill has had a difficult and long history because many interested parties were involved and because the practice which the Bill seeks to regulate is relatively complex and cannot be governed in all respects by statutory provisions. The various libraries which are already operating as legal deposit libraries, the library profession in general, as well as the publishing industry, negotiated for many years to find a generally acceptable formulation.

I just want to give hon. members an indication of how slowly the law actually ground. A Bill on Legal Deposit was almost ready before I resigned as chairman of the State Library Control Board in 1967 to accept the position of principal of the new university in Johannesburg. In the years that followed I lost contact, but I assume that the Bill had in the meantime been passed and the problems solved. However, when I accepted my new functions as Minister of Education, one of the pile of Bills on my desk was not only the National Education Policy Bill, to which I referred earlier, but also the Legal Deposit of Publications Bill. Consequently the mill had been grinding very slowly and thoroughly. I am mentioning this to give an indication of how long the negotiations on this matter really took.

The hon. member for Greytown wanted to know whether the provisions were not perhaps too comprehensive, while the hon. member for Durban North puts more specific questions, particularly in regard to clause 2(1)(c) and its interpretation in conjunction with clause 1(c). I also received representations from an important body, Assocom, to have another look at the matter since clause 2(c) might, in their opinion, be too comprehensive.

†In the first place I should like to confirm the assumption made by the hon. member for Durban North that unsolicited material is not included, except in the case of the type of newspaper that is disseminated on a local basis and without being paid for. It would probably quality in terms of clause 2(1)(a) as material to be registered as a newspaper in terms of the Post Office Act. Other unsolicited material, however, would not be included, but material subscribed to or requested would certainly include material published by political parties. In fact, the relevant libraries consider pamphlets and publications made available by political parties as being extremely important research material, and they are therefore rather keen to get as much of this material as possible into the net. The hon. member also referred to material made available by the Department of Information, material which is not for sale. Although this material has to be subscribed to, it is very largely also freely distributed and would have to be included in this case.

There is agreement between the libraries concerned and my department that the ambit of clause 2(1)(c) would have to be qualified in greater detail by virtue of the authority conferred on the Minister in clause 4(1)(c) empowering him specifically to exclude categories of publications by notice in the Gazette. We thought that it would be a more practicable and flexible way in the light of growing experience to determine more exactly which areas should be included and which excluded when it comes to these publications. The idea is also definitely not to overburden the libraries with an administration and storage problem by forcing on them material they are not interested in. I can therefore give the assurance that the apparently far-reaching implications of clause 2(1)(c) will be more carefully defined in terms of the authority conferred in Clause 4(1)(c) which empowers the Minister to exclude certain categories of publications. I can also give the assurance that there will be no prosecution of, or even pressure exerted on, the type of publisher referred to in clause 2(1)(c) until clarity has been achieved and the matter has been spelled out in greater detail by way of notice in the Gazette.

*I also wish to refer with great appreciation to the contribution made by the hon. member for Rosettenville. The hon. member referred to Dr. Nienaber. However, that hon. member is himself a kind of parliamentary Piet Nienaber, if one thinks of his skill as a collector of things worth knowing in the cultural sphere, which he incorporates into his speeches and brings to our attention in this House. I should just like to reply to a few questions which that hon. member asked. He referred to the question of co-ordination between the libraries. Attention is being given to this matter by the National Library Advisory Council, which will be replaced in the near future by a new body which the Government has decided to establish, viz. a National Council for Library and Information Science which will cover a far wider field than merely that of typical library material.

He also asked whether there was sufficient storage space for all this legal deposit material. Here I must refer to the policy which is adopted by the larger libraries. Away from the central business districts, in the cheaper areas, storage space is provided on a collective basis, where material which is infrequently used can be stored if it is deemed advisable not to destroy the material.

The hon. member also asked whether this legal deposit of publications requirements could not be extended to provincial libraries. However, this would not be feasible because provincial libraries are basically reading libraries. They are not primarily research libraries. These are the legal deposit libraries, university libraries and the libraries of research institutes which build up collections from which material may not readily be written off or removed. The practice at provincial libraries, as well as local authority libraries, is to offer a service to readers. Consequently, in order to make room for new and more popular reading matter from time to time, the older and less frequently used reading matter is written off and removed. In such cases applications are also made to other libraries that could perhaps make good use of such written-off material.

I think with this I have replied to the principal questions which were asked. Once again I convey my cordial thanks to the official Opposition, the NRP and my hon. colleague for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Agricultural Produce Agency Sales Act, 1975, provides that agents who sell agricultural produce on markets and elsewhere on behalf of the owners of such produce, shall keep trust accounts for the proceeds of such sales and shall themselves bear the costs in connection with the control and the Administration of these trust accounts.

During May 1981, commercial banks proceeded to charge the holders of cheque accounts service fees which varied according to the size of the amounts of the cheques issued. This system replaced the previous system whereby commercial banks, in addition to the commission on cheques, required the drawers as well as the recipients of the cheques to pay ledger fees. In the case of the trust accounts under discussion the altered arrangement entailed that the banker’s charges of the agents rose by 427%, while their principals no longer paid ledger fees on cheques which they received from agents.

As a result of urgent and justified representations from the Institute of Market Agents, the amending Bill provides that an agent will be able to recover a portion of the drastically increased banker’s charges in respect of trust accounts from their clients according to a table and in a manner to be prescribed in the Gazette.

I also which to mention that the Bill was introduced at the request of the Institute of Market Agents in South Africa, and with the support of the South African Agricultural Union.

The opportunity is also being taken to effect certain amendments which have become necessary as a result of rationalization. Certain amendments necessitated by the introduction of the new Co-operatives Act, 1981, have also been effected.

Mr. Speaker, if this amending Bill is agreed to today, it will give approximately 74 agents the right to recover a portion of the expenses in connection with the administration of their trust accounts from the farmers of our country. If one considers the arrangements as far as the agents are concerned, one sees that the rules for the registration of agents are precisely prescribed in the legislation we are discussing today. In addition the maximum commission which they may charge is also precisely prescribed. There is almost no business activity in the conduct of their affairs which is not prescribed by means of statutory provisions.

It is clear, however, that these provisions and restrictions have not inhibited the market agents of South Africa. The fact that there are today approximately 74 registered agents, who are all making sizeable profits, to my mind demonstrates the truth of this statement.

In previous years there was keen competition among the agents to market the farmer’s produce for him. The competition was very keen.

In recent years, however, a tendency arose to eliminate the competition by means of take-overs and mergers. This is not necessarily a healthy phenomenon and in the long term, it constitutes a danger to both the primary producer as well as the consumer. I am saying this because it frequently happens today that an agent is a subsidiary of the purchaser to whom he must offer or sell the farmer’s produce. This could entail that the best price is not always obtained.

In addition, if one takes note of the fact that the farmer frequently has no other choice but to market through an agent, we on this side of the House realize to what extent the farmer is at the mercy of the commission agent. Consequently we expect the hon. the Minister to think twice before he allows further costs to be passed on to the farmer.

We on this side of the House believe that the additional costs in connection with the trust account should not be recovered from the farmer, and consequently we are not in favour of this amendment. If we make a few calculations, we shall see what additional costs the Minister is proposing should be recovered from the producer. Suppose the turnover on meat and fesh produce were to amount to approximately R350 million per annum. Let us suppose, moreover, that the costs in respect of the paying of cheques to the farmers were to amount of 15 cents per R100. This is the lowest it could possibly be. This would mean that the banker’s charges would be just over R500 000, and that a part of that amount is now being passed onto the farmer. In my opinion this is inflationary and nothing else, and is completely at variance with the PFP’s policy of combating inflation. It is also at variance with our opinion that the gap between the consumer and producer price ought to be narrowed. Just the opposite would happen if this amendment were to be accepted. Time and again I have tried to explain to the hon. the Minister in this House, that he should do everything in his power to narrow the gap between the producer and the consumer price. Here he now has an opportunity to halt the widening of that gap, but with this legislation he is not doing so at all.

There is another aspect which should also be borne in mind. Banker’s charges vary to a great extent according to whether the payer has an unhealthy or healthy bank account, and is a reasonably good or a poor risk. If the agent is a poor risk that amount of R100 will not be 15%, but quite probably closer to 28%, and this would mean that the amount which could be passed on would be closer to R1 million, and we are not satisfied with that at all.

I shall also like to put this question: When that group of market agents negotiated with the hon. the Minister to their group of dealers, did the Minister get the impression that the agents were having a hard time of it, that they needed money? If the hon. the Minister has asked the right questions, the correct reply would in my opinion of course have been “no”. If one tries—and anyone can do this— to buy out a market agency, one realizes what that undertaking is worth. This is an indication to me of how profitable those market agencies are today. Consequently they do not need that money.

This statutory amendment is not in the interests of the farmer, nor is it in the interests of the consumer, and consequently we are opposed to it.

In this House last week we heard the hon. the Prime Minister making an appeal to all businessmen in the private sector to restrict their profits. When I consider the statutory amendments under discussion, it seems to me as though the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is, with this amendment, simply ignoring that plea. In addition, I wonder what would have happened if those agents had approached the hon. the Minister with the information that the costs in connection with the sending out of cheques and in connection with stamps have now increased and that they consequently want provision to be made for them to recover those additional amounts from the farmers as well. I would say that the reply would probably have been no. In addition, suppose salaries were to rise. Would the hon. the Minister then consider recovering those additional costs from the farmer? The reply in this case, too, is of course no. The agencies are only entitled to recover a certain percentage of the commission on produce sold by them. As produce prices have increased, the amount of money earned by the agents by means of commission, has also increased over the years. Over the years that commission has been sufficient to make their undertakings profitable enough to enable them to grow and expand. Consequently they have the income which they receive, and do not need this additional assistance.

Allow me to make one last statement. The undertakings of some of those market agents are so profitable that they are even prepared to forego the commission they earn. Hon. members who are farmers will be aware of this. They are even prepared to forego their commission if only they can obtain the produce of a farmer who might be marketing that produce through some other market agency. The arguments which a person is therefore able to advance all indicate that the market agents do not need that additional income. We know that the agricultural community is having quite a hard time. We on this side of the House are therefore not in favour of this additional expense being placed on the shoulders of the farmers of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we note that the Bill under discussion has 10 clauses. I do not hold it against the hon. member for Wynberg that he did not discuss all the clauses here. 95% of these clauses concern changes which flow naturally from amendments made to the Act in previous years. You will note that the amendments in clause 1 and in clause 2(b) result from the coming into force of the Co-operative Societies Act. I therefore do not think it is necessary for us to discuss them any further here. However, I do think it is as well to draw attention to them.

The clause the hon. member for Wynberg did discuss is clause 2(a), specifically that part of it involving the insertion of subsections (2A)(a) and (2A)(b) after section 17 of the principal Act. This clause does in fact bring about a change, but I want to approach it by saying that the hon. the Minister stated in his speech during the Second Reading that in the discussions which preceded this legislation he consulted certain people. The South African Agricultural Union was consulted in the process and they intimated that they agreed that the amendment could be effected. The South African Agricultural Union is the body which speaks on behalf of the farmers.

In this regard we must however give some attention to a few points. The change in the approach adopted by banks to commission on cheques and ledger fees, which the banks have amalgamated into a service fee recovered from the cheque holder instead of the person who receives the cheque, has resulted in a rise in the expenses of commission agents, because the commission agents cannot recover those costs other than through the commission they receive. I do not want to discuss the profits they make with the hon. member for Wynberg; I want to discuss how they can recover those costs. On the other hand, it is true that if the costs are passed on to the producer, it would mean that he, as the cheque-holder, must pay for the total amount he receives from the commission agent for the products sold and the inclusion of that amount as part of the production costs of the items he has sold. Then he must again write out cheques on which he, as the cheque holder, must pay the service fee in terms of the banking rules. In other words, the costs are passed on twice or one and a half times to the farmer. The question one must ask oneself is to what extent the farmer, in terms of his activities, can pass on the costs to the buyer of the product? We know that as far as these products are concerned this is not possible, because there is no fixed price system, but a price which is related to supply and demand, whether it be meat on an auction basis— although a floor price is fixed—or fresh vegetables auctioned on an auction basis.

If one considers the proposed subsection (2A)(b) one sees that the Minister has the authority to draw up a table in which he may determine what part of those service fees can be passed on to the producer. I venture to make the following friendly suggestion to the hon. the Minister: In the light of the costs now being diverted to the farmer, and as the farmer cannot avoid paying the costs of those cheques—although the amount is minimal—when the hon. the Minister compiles that table he must consult someone in respect of the costs the market agents must pay and which, according to his Second Reading speech, have shown an increase of 427% in recent years. However, these are not the only people he must consult. The South African Agricultural Union, or those branches of the South African Agricultural Union involved in this, must also decide to what extent it can be recovered. As I read this legislation it is possible that part of those costs can in fact be passed on to the principal of the commission agent. However, that is not to say the total cheque costs or ledger fees in that regard must be passed on. In this connection I wish to make a friendly plea to the hon. the Minister. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us a clear indication as to how that table is to be drawn up and who will be consulted. The hon. the Minister must have the authority so that if additional costs which cannot be borne by the market agent are to be passed on to the farmer, he can take the necessary steps. That authority must exist because if the market agent can in fact bear the costs then I think the hon. the Minister must also have the authority to determine that an absolute minimum is passed on to the farmer. He must be able to do this to ensure that the producer does not have to carry one and a half times the costs whereas someone else only carries half of them. I agree with the principle raised by the hon. member for Wynberg in terms of his argument. However, in the implementation of the Act—as the hon. the Minister himself put it—I think sufficient provision has been made. If it is well administered. I think that the problems which may arise in respect of costs can be solved without increasing the commission. A certain part of the costs could in fact be passed on which, in the long run, could lower the farmer’s costs. At this point I wish to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to give us this assurance and in the light of this we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will be supporting this Bill because we feel that there is an essence of reasonableness about it. It is restoring to a great extent a situation that existed before the introduction of service charges by banks. I want to support very strongly the point made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp in his plea to the hon. the Minister to ensure that the prescribed table over which he has authority will be studied in the context that it will not in any way be used as a weapon to, shall we say, exploit the producer by any means whatsoever. We on these benches see this Bill as a means of ensuring that any representations for an increase in commission charges by agents can be avoided. This is one of the reasons why we are prepared to support this legislation.

I should also just like to point out that one is very conscious of the fact that organized agriculture itself appreciates the problems involved in this matter and that organized agriculture through the South African Agricultural Union, has given its support to this Bill. I do not think that this is something that should be ignored. I think it is an indication of the reasonable approach of agricultural producers through their organizations towards meeting a problem that has occurred and meeting it in a responsible and meaningful way.

On that basis we have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the hon. member for Mooi River for supporting the amendment as proposed in this Bill on behalf of his party.

I listened attentively to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech and I just want to say that I am convinced that the amendment proposed by the hon. Minister is really necessary. However, I too share the concern of the hon. members for Ventersdorp and Mooi River, as well as the hon. member for Wynberg. However, I feel we must at least be realistic and concede that a tremendous price increase has taken place in respect of trust account. The hon. member for Ventersdorp pointed out that the cost increase totalled 427%. That money must be recovered from somewhere. That is why we can express our concern because the agriculturist, or client in this case, will have to pay bank charges to both sides. When I say “to both sides” I mean both to the agency and to his clients or creditor. Every farmer will agree with me that when a product has to be prepared for market, he must incur certain expenses. He must purchase certain requisites wherewith to prepare the product for market. After the farmer has received his cheque from the agency, he has to pay for those requisites. When he pays he also has to pay bank charges. I support the amendment because the South African Agricultural Union supports it. I assume that they have investigated this matter thoroughly. I do not think there are any problems as regards the remaining amendments and I therefore support them, too, as they have been proposed by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I think the principle which we are debating here is very obvious and there is no need to belabour it. What we in these benches are saying is that there is a disturbing tendency for production costs to be passed on to the primary producer. This is what we are objecting to. We are objecting to any legislation which makes this possible or easier to happen. I believe that the hon. member for Ventersdorp has conceded this point.

What we are also saying is that one should leave the question of what is passed on to the primary producer, to the agent himself. This is the spirit of free enterprise. If the agent finds that he can handle the farmer’s produce and accepts more of the costs while he passes on the less of the costs to the farmer, it means that he is an efficient operator and he deserves to be successful in his particular field.

Furthermore what we are also saying is that if we believe in the free enterprise system, we should start putting our money where our mouth is.

These are our primary reasons for objecting to this legislation and our reasons for opposing it. I believe the principles are clear and we know what we are voting about. I therefore do not wish to raise any further points at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I was really surprised this afternoon that such an undisputed measure, submitted with the approval of everyone concerned, was opposed so strenuously by the Opposition.

But your own people are so worried about the legislation.

When I introduced the legislation on co-operatives last year, legislation that was in the interests of the country’s farmers, the official Opposition fought us tooth and nail and to such an extent that, if memory serves me right, the Bill was discussed about 13 times. There they had the opportunity to show their support to the farmers, but they opposed the legislation. It is quite clear to me that the hon. member for Wynberg read the Bill but did not understand it. That is in fact the difference between the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Mooi River, because it is quite clear that the hon. member for Mooi River understands the Bill, whereas the hon. member for Wynberg does not. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wynberg set up any number of straw dolls and knocked them down again. He also saw a number of ghosts. The hon. member read things into the Bill which are not there and which are not at issue here. What is involved here? In the first place we are dealing here with commission agents at our fresh produce markets. In the second place we are dealing with producers supplying to the markets. Both these parties are satisfied with the measure as it was introduced in this House. All that the proposed legislation means is that the position is being restored to what it was prior to May 1981. No one is being placed in a better or worse position. However, the hon. member for Albany said: “Production cost is passed on to the primary producer”. He went on to say: “We must follow a system of free enterprise …”

†I wonder whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that the commission of these agents are fixed.

I said that is what we …

They are working for a fixed commission. Does the hon. member want to suggest that the percentage which is to be fixed by the Minister should be withdrawn?

*Mr. Speaker, there is quite sufficient competition, because the total commission an agent can earn on a farmer’s product is fixed by the Minister. No one can therefore make excessive profits. In addition, trust accounts are kept to ensure that the producer’s interests are protected. These people must also incur certain additional costs, therefore, and this is also in the interests of the producer.

The situation prior to May 1981 was clearly spelt out by the hon. member for Ventersdorp. The change brought about by the banks caused the commission agent’s costs to rise by 427%. All that is contemplated by this legislation is to restore the position to what it was before the banks changed over to this system. I thank the hon. member for Ventersdorp for his contribution to this debate. It is clear that he knows exactly what is going on here. He also made a very interesting remark when he asked whether the S.A. Agricultural Union would make a contribution in determining the cost percentage that will be defined in the table. I assure the hon. member that I shall pursue the matter further and that I shall give both the S.A. Agricultural Union and the Institute for Market Agents the opportunity to make contributions so that there can be a fair dispensation in respect of costs, to the satisfaction of all parties.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Mooi River for his contribution and for the support of his party for this Bill. I also want to thank the hon. member for mentioning the fact that the S.A. Agricultural Union also supports this measure and that one must take notice of this.

*The hon. member for Ladybrand also supported this legislation and I thank him for this.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr.

Speaker, I move—

The aim of the amendment is to vest in the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries the authority to increase or lower the interest rate on loans which was pegged at 5% in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1966, with the agreement of the Minister of Finance, in order to keep pace with economic trends.

There can be little doubt that although farmers who qualify for assistance in terms of the Act are financially extremely vulnerable, the excessively low rate of 5% which applies at present gives them a rather unfair advantage over agriculturalists who have to rely on private institutions, commercial banks, co-operatives and even the Land Bank to finance their activities. The South African Agricultural Union agrees in principle that a limited adjustment would not be unreasonable.

It is by no means certain that present economic trends will continue indefinitely, and it is felt that the upward or downward adjustment of interest rates must not always be preceded by legislation, but that a more flexible policy should be followed in future.

Hon. members will note that the interest rate on assistance granted prior to the commencement of the amending Act will not be affected by the proposed amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should just like to say that it is a pleasure for us to be able to support this Bill. It is almost amusing to hear that the hon. Deputy Minister made provision in his submission for the interest rates to be either increased or lowered. It is of course correct to make provision for a possible reduction, but in practice we in this House all know, of course, that there is very little possibility of that.

If one considers the sums of money made available to farmers by the Agricultural Credit Board during the past few years, one sees what a tremendous and important role this particular body plays in agriculture. The hon. the Minister did not mention any actual figures today, although he should perhaps have done so. However, I believe that by the end of March 1982, approximately R215 million will be owing at the old interest rate of 5%. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether that figure is more or less correct, because I think it is important for this House to take note of it. Of course, in future this amount will still be subject to an interest rate of 5%. It is also important and interesting to note how the amounts loaned by the Department gradually increased over the years and then suddenly increased more rapidly during the past two years. In 1977-’78 the amount was R16,2 million, which increased the following year to R18,7 million. Then there was a tremendous leap to R54,6 million, and the following year it was as high as R93 million. One can expect that the amounts loaned in the future at a higher interest rate could well reach the R100 million mark in a single year. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister more or less what interest rate he thinks he and the hon. the Minister of Finance will specify, because I think it is a good idea for us in this House to have an idea of what agriculture is going to have to pay in the future.

I think there is another aspect to which we must refer when we talk about agricultural credit, namely the role that agriculture plays in rural areas. I do not believe that the average citizen, particularly people outside this House, are aware of the necessity for a sound agricultural sector in South Africa. Not everyone is aware that as a result of climatic conditions and conditions such as soil fertility, South Africa is not really one of the foremost agricultural countries in the world. It is thanks to expertise, knowledge, effort and perseverance that the agricultural sector has achieved what it has. This has resulted in several million workers being employed in the agricultural sector, and if that sector should fare badly, they will not be able to make a living in the rural areas and will have to stream to the cities, which in turn will cause additional problems in the country which we may not be able to deal with. For this reason the interest rate of 5% paid thus far, or the increased interest rate which will be paid by farmers after this legislation is accepted, must not be seen as being of benefit only to the individual using that money. It must be seen as being of benefit to the entire community in which the farmer operates, in bringing about a vigorous rural community capable of providing job opportunities for all and everything that involves.

Against this background we realize that the interest rate must indeed increase. We realize that the hon. the Minister has no choice but to increase it. We also realize the problems he is facing. We therefore gladly support the amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, to start with I want to thank the hon. member for Wynberg for supporting the amending Bill at present before us on behalf of his party.

Agricultural financing is not only necessary, it is indispensable. This statement has frequently been made and frequently repeated. It is most applicable to the financing by the Department of Agricultural Credit of deserving farmers who qualify for aid. If we consider the amendments contemplated in this Bill, the statement I have just made is extremely relevant.

If I am to assess the reaction of our farmers to the steps contemplated in this amendment, I should say it would be fourfold. There will be disappointment, there will be understanding, there will be gratitude and there will also be expectancy. There will be a feeling of disappointment that an upward adjustment of the interest rates on new assistance loans is necessary. There will be understanding for the fact that such an adjustment has become unavoidable. There will also be gratitude that the Government will fix interest rates on existing advances and loans at 5%. Then there will be the expectation that the adjustment will be moderate.

When I say there will be a feeling of disappointment about the interest adjustment, which will probably be an upward adjustment, on new assistance, I motivate my statement by saying that the disappointment will deprive, inter alia, from the fact that any increase in the interest rate will further impede the task of the agricultural sector to produce food. It is a fact that nowadays it is already extremely difficult for the farmer to be economically viable, as a result of increasing production costs and low and unrealistic prices for his products, to mention but a few causes.

The farmer who receives aid and assistance from the State or who must approach the State to finance his undertaking, has believed for many years, and still believes, that the Department of Agricultural Credit was established for a specific purpose, namely to keep the farmer in the industry by means of sound and economic financing. If we take steps such as those proposed in the Bill, this goal cannot be ignored, and we must take cognizance of it.

If we look at the history of the Department of Agricultural Credit, even during the difficult years, we realize—and we must understand—that there are going to be disappointments, that upward adjustments have become necessary. Agricultural financing by the State, and the favourable conditions of capital and interest redemption involved are only one side of the coin, the favourable side, because the interest is low and the conditions attaching to the loan or assistance are fair and certainly the best the farmer can expect. The other side of the coin, however, is that the farmer also has other financial commitments, including loans at commercial banks and co-operatives—and at banks in particular, interest rates are extremely high. The farmer qualifying for aid from Agricultural Credit is having a hard time of it, and for this reason he is extremely sensitive to any increase in interest rates, especially from the Land Bank and from Agricultural Credit. The agricultural sector considers these two bodies to be state financing institutions established for a specific purpose, namely, as I have already said, to supply sound, cheap and economic financing to the farmer. Agricultural Credit was also established to make available fair credit facilities to the farming industry with the aim of promoting this industry, because basically, the farming industry is responsible for the continued existence of the nation.

Because agriculture is constantly affected by the vagaries of nature, livestock diseases and price fluctuations, the State has always provided low interest financing to the farmer. The State has continued to grant preventative assistance and has introduced schemes to assist deserving farmers, inter alia, to consolidate debt, to survive emergencies or to purchase land in order to prevent those farmers from leaving the industry. Certain farmers have definitely become extremely dependant on financial aid at minimum interest rates over the years, and if we take all this into account, then I feel we must understand that people will be disappointed about the planned adjustment in the interest rate. However, I also said that one must understand, and most of our farmers will understand, the necessity for making adjustments in the interest rate, because various reasons can be given for this. The present upward trend in interest rates must lead to adjustments in the interest rate having to be made. We also understand that the State must be realistic. At present money is scarce and expensive, irrespective of where one gets it. Perhaps there are those who argue that because it is the tax-payers’ money with which agriculture is financed, financing must be granted, but at a considerably higher interest rate. This argument does not convince me. The farmer in South Africa has a unique role to perform, and for this reason he certainly can lay claim to special protection and preferential treatment. However, in all fairness even the agricultural sector will have to concede that an adjustment in the interest rate such as that envisaged in this amendment will not be inappropriate. When we note the intention to fix interest rates on existing loans at 5%, everyone has reason to be very grateful. This decision by the Government, under exceptionally difficult circumstances, really constitutes an accommodating standpoint and decision. I feel it displays an attitude the farmer in South Africa ought to take cognizance of with gratitude.

There is one idea I should like to express with regard to the financing of deserving farmers in our designated areas. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to see to it or try to see to it that when adjustments are made—such as the upward adjustments in the interest rate we are expecting— that in those specially designated areas, an adjustment to a lower interest rate will be made. The hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of the circumstances in those specific areas. A few years ago this hon. House adopted special legislation specifically in order to make provision for special assistance in those particular areas. The fact of the matter is that farmers in the designated areas are still demanding that that legislation which was passed at the time be implemented.

In conclusion I also want to put a question and a request to the hon. the Deputy Minister. With regard to my concern about the designated areas, and the people in those areas, I should like to put the following question to the hon. the Deputy Minister: Is the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries going to amend its policy in connection with the granting of assistance, loans, etc., in any way? It is essential that the hon. the Deputy Minister furnish us with an answer at this stage because our people are concerned, there is uneasiness among our farmers, who fear that the Department is going to curtail drastically the aid to those designated areas. I should therefore greatly appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister could give us an answer to this question.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will be supporting this Bill. I therefore do not wish to take up any considerable amount of time. I should like, however, to make just one or two observations. In doing so I make these observations as a former member of an agricultural credit committee, and I can assure the House that anybody who has been a member of one of those committees must inevitably find, as I did, what a depressing job it is. I can also say, however, that I have from time to time made mention of how important it is that young farmers in this country should be kept on the land, and there is little doubt that the Agricultural Credit Act has been largely responsible for maintaining a certain degree of stability among the young people in the rural areas. I believe that from that point of view we can say that it has been a tremendous success, and that it has fulfilled a very urgent need in the agricultural sector of this country.

I should like to touch briefly on the thought that is behind this legislation, and I would appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to be very much aware of the principles involved in the existing Act when it was approved originally by Parliament quite a few years ago. That is the necessity for restraining the interest rates in terms of the Act. These must at all times be kept at a very restrictive level. On that basis we have pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members for their support for this Bill. I thank the hon. member for Wynberg for the insight he showed in connection with the necessity for this amendment. The hon. member tried to get a dig in obliquely by alleging that under this Government it will be impossible for interest rates to drop. However, I am prepared to bet him a few angora goats to his pig farm that in our time in this House, interest rates will drop again.

The hon. member asked me about the total outstanding loans still owing to the Department of Agricultural Credit. I am not able to give him the exact amount now. I should prefer not to venture to mention an amount. However, I think the hon. member is close to the mark, but I do not think that is the total outstanding amount; I think it is the total allocations during the past few years. I should prefer to get the amounts up to the end of April, when the financial year comes to a close. Then we can debate this matter meaningfully when we discuss the Agriculture and Fisheries Vote. I should very much like to support the hon. member in this connection, but I do want to give him the exact amounts outstanding under the various assistance schemes, because these are also interesting. It will be interesting to analyse the assistance schemes and then to make the various amounts available to the hon. members. I shall definitely do so during the discussion of the Vote, and perhaps even prior to that.

The hon. member also made mention of the increased amounts loaned during the past few years, and I am glad he noticed this because it is in fact true. Considerably larger allocations from the Treasury were made for specific purposes. The hon. member will recall that two years ago we increased the production loans granted to farmers who had had a failed crop the previous year, by 100%, namely from R20 000 to R40 000. This is one reason for the increase in the allocations by Agricultural Credit. The other very important reason was mentioned by the hon. member Mr. Theunissen, and that is the aid programme introduced in the remote areas. Additional funds were allocated by the Treasury for these remote areas. That is the other reason why the amounts rose so considerably.

The hon. member also asked me what interest rates will apply. I do not want to negotiate with the hon. the Minister of Finance before we have passed the legislation, but I will probably conduct a discussion with the hon. the Minister of Finance, through the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, in the near future. The idea, although still very tentative, is to follow the Land Bank in this regard. The Land Bank rate rose by 4%, namely from 7% to 11% on new loans. The idea is that the interest rate of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries should rise from 5% to 8%. This is also the interest rate I mentioned to the South African Agricultural Union and they agreed with me that this would be a reasonable increase, but nothing has yet been decided. It will be announced as soon as negotiations have taken place with the hon. the Minister of Finance.

The hon. member Mr. Theunissen expressed many sentiments with regard to this Department because he knows so much about it. He is acquainted with the remote areas and as an attorney he has a great deal to do with applications he has had to handle on behalf of his clients. I also want to say to his credit today that he is given a particularly sympathetic hearing in the department because of his approach and the balanced attitude he adopts with regard to representations he submits on behalf of his clients. This also applies to him as an MP. I should like to thank him for his grasp of the entire matter. He asked two questions I should now like to answer very briefly.

The first concerns a lower interest rate for the designated areas. We have not yet given attention to this. As a matter of fact, we have never discussed the adjustment on a differentiated basis. Hon. members will realize that it will be an extremely difficult matter to handle administratively in a department such as this. It would be extremely difficult. However, I have taken cognizance of what the hon. member said and I shall certainly ask the board to go into the matter.

The hon. member also asked me whether there will be any change in the policy now that the interest rate has been adjusted. All I can say is that there will be no change at all. The policy as it has been maintained thus far, will be strictly maintained in future. However, I want to tell hon. members that as a result of an appeal made by the hon. the Minister of Finance to all departments, and as a result of cutbacks by all departments, this department has also had to forfeit certain funds, and it was essential for us to terminate certain schemes. One of the schemes we decided to terminate was the scheme for the purchase of land both in the Republic and in the designated areas. We only had R6 million available for this utilization in the Republic in the financial year and that money was soon exhausted. I think it was as far back as August of last year that we put a stop to this scheme for the Republic. As far as the designated areas are concerned, I think we stopped the scheme in December.

However, there is another reason, and I should like to mention it here. It was reported to us by farmer’s associations and leaders in those areas that tremendous land speculation had developed in those areas and that some of the people who had been aided by us to obtain land there were speculating in land. This assumed such proportions, and land prices rose to such an extent, that we came to the conclusion that we would have to put a stop to the scheme there, on the one hand because we did not have the funds, and on the other, in an effort to control this speculation to a certain extent. I think we have already succeeded in this. I am told there has been total drop in this speculation. Hon. members know with what enthusiasm we launched this scheme and with what enthusiasm we helped many young men to become established there. I must say that people who do this sort of thing really do not have the interests of the country at heart. One really cannot condone this sort of behaviour. I just wanted to give the hon. members these few facts.

†Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Mooi River for his support and also for his very positive comments in regard to the department. As a former member of the Agricultural Credit Committee for Mooi River I know and I can support him in his submission that it is a very depressing job. However, I want to point out to the hon. member that he only had to deal with the farmers in Mooi River whereas I have to deal with at least 50% of the cases that the Agricultural Credit Board turns down. The hon. member can just imagine how depressing it is for me to have to deal with this sort of thing.

We can see that.

The hon. member also spoke about young farmers.

*If you will allow me, Sir, I just wish to say a few words about this. I am glad the hon. member raised this matter because it is indeed the main task of the department to try to establish young farmers on the land. We have various ways of doing this, but you will not allow me, Sir, to elaborate on that. I think we can debate this in the discussion of my Vote because it will be very interesting for hon. members to know what measures we adopt in this regard. However, I just want to make one remark concerning a change in policy. This may also interest the hon. member Dr. Odendaal. We have begun to finance young part-time farmers on a very limited scale. I think this is a step in the right direction, but I do not want to pursue this matter because you will not allow me to do so, Sir. However, I just wanted to mention it so that hon. members can prepare themselves for the discussion of my Vote when we can have a very interesting debate on this entire matter. I want to thank members for their positive remarks.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since 1933, when the present Veterinary Act was placed on the Statute Book, we have witnessed spectacular advances in the field of veterinary science. To a large extent, these developments have also influenced the professional position of the persons involved in this profession. Therefore it has become necessary that the legislation regulating the position of such persons be brought into line with present-day needs, and the Bill which is before this House today contains the necessary provision in this connection.

In 1933, virtually all qualified veterinary surgeons were employed by the State. Therefore it was logical that the Veterinary Board, which had to control the activities of veterinarians, was established as a body within the then Department of Agriculture. However, over the past 49 years the pattern of employment has changed considerably. Today, almost 70% of the veterinarians in the Republic are in private practice, while fewer than 10% are in the service of the State. The direct involvement of the State in the Veterinary Board can hardly be justified under modern circumstances. It is also felt by veterinarians that the present Veterinary Board should be replaced by an autonomous body.

†The Bill therefore provides for the establishment of a juristic person to be known as the South African Veterinary Council. The majority of the members of this council is to be elected by veterinarians and other registered persons. The council is charged with the responsibility to control the practising of veterinary and para-veterinary professions. For this purpose it is vested with the power to register the persons practising such professions, to investigate the conduct of such persons and to take disciplinary action if necessary.

As in most other professions, veterinarians are obliged to make use of technical assistance to an ever increasing extent. Existing legislation provides for the registration of veterinary assistants and veterinary nurses. There will be in future, without doubt, further refining in the scope of work of such supplementary professions. The Bill therefore empowers the Minister to declare the provisions thereof applicable to specified para-veterinary professions.

Students in veterinary science are in the course of their practical training often required to perform tasks which are reserved for registered persons. It is deemed necessary to bring such students under the disciplinary control of the council for this purpose. The Bill therefore provides that such students shall also be registered with the council. Generally speaking, our veterinarians maintain an exceptionally high standard in the rendering of their services. To ensure the maintenance of this standard, the Bill provides that the council may make rules which are to be complied with by registered persons. Likewise unregistered persons are prohibited from performing tasks which are reserved for registered persons.

*The Bill was drafted in close consultation with the South African Veterinary Association. I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the office-bearers of the association for their assistance and for the initiative they took in having the Bill drafted. And since we are on the eve of a new dispensation, it is also appropriate to pay tribute to members and former members of the present Veterinary Board for the highly valued way in which they have guided the veterinary profession over the years. I believe that the new council will be able to build on the foundations laid by its predecessors.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House shall support the Bill; in fact, we welcome the measure which we have before us. It provides for more autonomy for veterinarians, something which they have always wanted. Therefore, we welcome that. As explained by the hon. the Deputy Minister, in terms of the legislation a South African Veterinary Council will be established which will replace the existing Veterinary Board. The Bill makes provision for the takeover period and it makes provision for the composition of the Veterinary Council, its functions and powers, code of conduct and disciplinary powers and for inquiries into offences. We on this side of the House have gone through the Bill very carefully and we cannot think of any contingencies for which it does not cater. We are very happy to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to say a few words about this Bill today. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, spectacular advances have been made in veterinary science over the past 50 years. I want to pay tribute to this profession for the enormous contribution it has made to the establishment of the present pattern of farming, especially in respect of the health of the livestock. As far as the health of farm animals is concerned, South Africa is the leader in Africa. We are second to none in the world in this respect. This is indeed a splendid achievement, which does not always receive the recognition it deserves. The veterinarian, especially in the rural areas, has made a very great contribution to the establishment of successful farming patterns. They have great achievements to their credit in that they have controlled epidemics and helped our country to surmount problems which could not be surmounted in other countries. I am thinking here, among other things, of the various outbreaks of lumpy-skin disease, East Coast fever, as well as foot and mouth disease, and research which has led to the development of a whole spectrum of vaccines which today ensure that our livestock is not depleted by unexpected diseases. This service was rendered in a very unselfish way. For these men and women it was never too early or too late to give attention to the problems which a farmer was having with his animals. I want to thank them for this today. I hope that this Bill, which is to regulate veterinary science, will help to attract more veterinarians to the rural areas, where a serious shortage is being experienced at the moment. A certain philosopher once said—

The last part is surely applicable to the veterinary profession.

The purpose of the Bill has been clearly explained by the hon. the Deputy Minister, so I do not want to spend any more time on that. The legislation is well drafted. The Bill also provides clear guidelines concerning the composition of the S.A. Veterinary Council. Its powers and activities are clearly set out and perfectly understandable. The same goes for the methods of financing the council. The requirements for registration, as well as the disciplinary measures if malpractices should occur, are equally clearly defined. The field of activity is clearly defined, perhaps too clearly, because I foresee possible problems in implementing it. In this connection I am referring specifically to clause 23(2)(d). This clause defines the area over which the council will exercise control. Careful study of the clause reveals that the field is so wide that it includes areas which are also covered by other related professions. This wide definition may cause certain related professions to be deprived of an area in which they are normally active. The principle contained in clause 23(2)(d) relates to the—

and provides that financial advantage which—

appertains to the Veterinary Council or the veterinary field. It is an enormously wide field which is being covered, when one thinks of a disease caused by a mineral or vitamin deficiency. This is a disease which can only be cured by administering nutrients and not by the provision of medicines. In this grey area, where the nutritionist and the veterinarian have to work together, the assurance must be given that the veterinarian will not enter the field of the nutritionist and dictate to the nutritionist in his own field. There is a built-in protective mechanism in section 30 of the Act which lays down the rules for the delimitation of the spheres of activity. The Veterinary Council submits the rules to the hon. the Minister, but they first have to be approved by the hon. the Minister before they become effective. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to evaluate the recognition of the submissions of the veterinary profession on the basis of expert advice which other professions can furnish him with, so that the field which has sometimes given rise to problems in the past is not laid down in legislation to the exclusion of the groups’ interest.

What does the hon. member for Parktown say about apartheid among veterinarians?

Order!

However, my problem is that there are already words contained in clause 23 that are actually going to make it difficult for the hon. the Minister eventually—when the legislation has been passed and representations have been made to him—to use his discretion. I am referring, for example, to words such as “food” and “any pathological condition, whatever cause thereof”. These words cover such a wide field that one could take it to include almost anything. For that reason I want to give notice that I shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage to have the words “whatever the cause thereof” and the word “food” deleted. However, this will not affect the principle of the legislation at all. On the contrary, it would offer the hon. the Minister greater scope for handling possible problems in the future.

I trust that the contribution made by this legislation will help to confirm and enhance the positive attitude that has always existed between the related professions. I gladly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches see this Bill as a very positive measure. We see it as a measure fulfilling a very important need in the veterinary profession and also as a measure for streamlining the profession and placing it on a sound organizational footing.

There are, however, just one or two points I should like to raise in this regard. My comments relate to the para-veterinary profession and certain dangers that might arise there. I wish to point out how important it is for the field or areas of practice of qualified veterinarians not to be trespassed upon by the para-veterinarians. This could have the effect of killing the veterinary profession in the rural areas. One has to be very careful that this aspect of the legislation, which I have no doubt will enjoy the consideration of the S. A. Veterinary Council, will be, shall we say, fulfilled to provide a safeguard for the veterinary profession as such, which I think is most desirable.

We have looked at the composition of the Veterinary Council. I should like to refer here to clause 5(1)(d), i.e. “six persons elected in the prescribed manner!’. Obviously it is absolutely imperative to ensure that the say in the affairs of the veterinary profession should stay in the right hands, that is to say, directly in the hands of the veterinary profession itself. I am leading on to the point that I feel it is imperative that we ensure that the welfare of the livestock industry is not allowed to fall into the hands of organizations dealing with remedial products, organizations which, as it were, unscrupulously use people with para-veterinary qualifications for the purpose of selling remedial products. I feel that this is an aspect which must be borne very much in mind during, shall we say, the early functioning of the Veterinary Council.

I feel that there is no need to elaborate on the Bill any further. It is a positive Bill and a Bill which is fulfilling a requirement. I see it is one that will be welcomed throughout the veterinary field in this country. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my thanks for the support given to the Bill by the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg South, Prieska and Mooi River. I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Prieska said in paying tribute to the profession. The fact that the small stock and large stock industries in South Africa are at such a high level today can be attributed, I believe, to the fact that we had veterinarians who were prepared to travel along dusty roads, to work through nights and to provide animal health care where none had existed before. Therefore I really want to support the hon. member in the tribute he paid to the profession. I should also like to tell the profession that the high standard of service rendered to the farmers by these professional people deserves to be mentioned in this House. The hon. member for Prieska is very knowledgeable in this field, of course. In fact, he is a nutritionist. He obtained his doctorate in that field. We could see that he was an expert in this field. I want to tell him that the problems which he raised with regard to the one particular clause were thoroughly discussed by us. We shall be able to debate them further during the Committee Stage. He also said—and this ties up with the point made by the hon. member for Mooi River— that when it comes to drawing up the rules, one will have to be very careful, on the one hand, not to harm other industries in their activities and, on the other hand, as the hon. member for Mooi River rightly said, also to provide proper protection to the profession against people who are not properly trained, and also, in fact, to protect the people who make use of the profession against people who have not been properly trained. I believe it actually cuts both ways. I am very glad that the hon. member for Prieska and the hon. member for Mooi River raised this point. When the rules are finally submitted for approval, one will have to scrutinize them to ensure that both these points are covered, that one is not doing anything which could harm the profession and that matters such as those raised by the hon. member for Prieska are covered in the rules.

I do not believe any further points were raised, and I once again thank hon. members for their support. This profession is certainly maintaining a very high standard in the country and I hope that by means of this legislation we shall be able to afford it the necessary protection. I trust that they will be able to build on the high standard they have maintained up to now and that we shall be able to help them do so.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 23:

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

1. (1) On page 21, in line 39, to omit “,whatever the cause thereof,”;
2. (2) on page 21, in line 47, to omit “,food”.

The amendments do not involve any material change to the principle, but only create clarity. The various parties that were consulted in drafting this Bill have also been consulted about the amendments and consensus has been achieved in this connection between the veterinary and nutritional professions. They have not raised any objection, therefore, to the amendment of these words. I do not know whether it is necessary to define it at length once again, because it has already been done in the Second Reading debate. However, I repeat that the amendments will considerably improve the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I gladly accept the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill which is now before the House provides, in the first place, for the replacement of certain expressions and references to laws that have become obsolete. These amendments have resulted from the rationalisation of the Public Service, as well as the repeal of laws, and are for the most part self-explanatory.

However, I should like to direct the attention of the House to the proposed amendment of section 12 of the Expropriation Act, as envisaged in clause 4(1)(d) and (e). The provisions that are to be amended concern the goodwill of a business that has been expropriated and the requirements for determining it.

As hon. members know, it is a basic principle of the Expropriation Act that the owner whose land is being expropriated is entitled to fair and equitable compensation. The basis on which this compensation is calculated can be summarized by saying that such compensation may not exceed the amount that would have been obtained from a property if it had been sold on the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer. To this amount is added an amount to compensate for the real financial loss or inconvenience caused by the expropriation, as well as a solatium at 10% of the total amount, but not exceeding R10 000.

†In terms of the Expropriation Act the goodwill of any business or profession conducted or pursued upon the expropriated land on the date of expropriation has to be taken into account in determining the compensation. The said Act provides that in respect of goodwill the amount of compensation may not exceed the highest net profit obtained from such business or profession during any twelve months of the period of thirty-six months immediately preceding the date of expropriation. Whilst it is agreed that this formula provides an easy and speedy method to calculate the amount payable in respect of goodwill, it has been found that this method is not equitable in the case of larger businesses. Experience has proven, and the experts have confirmed, that the goodwill of a business which shows a dynamic growth is worth considerably more in the open market than the sum allowed for in the Act. It is not fair towards the owner or shareholders of a business to be compensated at less than market value and it has therefore been decided, after legal opinion has been obtained, that the restriction contained in the Act in regard to goodwill, should be removed. The compensation payable in respect of goodwill will in future be based on its actual value on the open market, which value will naturally have to be proven.

*Finally, I should like to explain why it is necessary to replace the reference to the senior magistrate who can be appointed as president of a compensation court in terms of the Act. This amendment arises from a change in the rank structure of the magistrates’ division of the Department of Justice. The present rank of senior magistrate is a much more senior rank than it used to be before the revision, while the prerevision rank compares well with that of a magistrate with ten years experience. So it is not much of a change that is taking place, and the Act is simply being adapted to present-day circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House will be supporting this legislation. I think it is important that we should express immediately a certain sense of disappointment in that when we received notice that a Bill to amend the Expropriation Act was to be introduced we looked forward to certain improvements. We know that all countries have Expropriation Acts, whether they are called that or Compulsory Purchase Acts and, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has just pointed out, it is an important principle that an Act such as this should provide people with equitable compensation because it is in fact an assault on the basic and personal property rights of an individual for the State to take his land against his will. We need this Act. Of course, we are pleased that there are these amendments, one of which I think is an important improvement, but we are sorry that there are not more of them. It is also unfortunate that the Expropriation Act has been used in this country in most cases to bring about land consolidation and to enforce the Group Areas Act and the ideology of apartheid. We are concerned about improving this Act and we hope that the hon. the Minister will during the next year or two introduce amending legislation which will give more uniformity to the whole process of expropriation in this country, more particularly in relation to some of the provincial ordinances. We hope too that there will be a fairer deal for the expropriatee in terms of compensation. If this amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister has proposed in relation to goodwill is a foretaste of that, I think it is a good sign. The question of solatium, “traangeld of troosgeld”, is obviously one which is completely out of date and to limit it to an amount of R10 000 seems ridiculous in these times of inflation.

How much do you think it should be?

There are four aspects of this amending Bill, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned. The one, of course, is as a result of the alleged rationalization of the Public Service. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister must sometimes feel very rationalized because I see that he is Deputy Minister of Development as well as Deputy Minister of Land Affairs and therefore his life must be sometimes sadly divided. We trust, however, that there is that rationalization taking place.

Then there is the question of a change in the interest rates which is a sensible provision to meet the present change in interest rates. We have dealt with the aspect of the senior magistrate and we shall support that. Then there is the question of putting a ceiling on the amount of a claim for compensation for loss of goodwill. This has been a bad principle and we support the fact that that has been deleted. We support it because we agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s view that a claim can continue to be made in terms of subsection (1) of section 12. This will also, as the hon. the Deputy Minister forgets to mention, allow for some claims for goodwill to be disallowed because there are people who in certain cases claim goodwill and who have received some benefits under this section, but who in fact should never really have received those benefits. This will therefore mean that the Act will be fairer to the State as well as to the expropriatee.

We shall support this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is obviously a great deal of unanimity about this measure. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister need be unduly concerned about the complaints we had from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. He spoke about a fair deal of expropriated persons, but that was actually just a vague statement. He did not motivate it by making any specific proposals to the hon. the Deputy Minister for further improvements which could be effected next time.

There is actually just one provision of real importance in this Bill, namely the deletion of section 12(5)(i) of the principal Act. Perhaps one should say a few words about this. The hon. the Deputy Minister has motivated the amendment and I think we may take it that the deletion of that paragraph is justified. It is based on expert advice, on legal opinions which can probably be regarded as authoritative, and therefore we must assume that it is justified and that it will therefore not harm the existing measure in any way. It is nevertheless understandable that there will probably be some difference of opinion among lawyers concerning the consequences and implications of the deletion of that particular paragraph.