TUESDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2002 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:08.

The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayer or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND DEPUTY MINISTER OF HEALTH

                           (Announcement)

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, I have to announce that the Secretary to Parliament has received a letter from the Office of the President informing Parliament that Mr D M Malatsi has been appointed Deputy Minister of Social Development and Mr R S Schoeman has been appointed as Deputy Minister of Health with effect from 4 November 2002.

Mr Malatsi is not a member of the National Assembly and has been appointed under section 93(1)b of the Constitution. This is by way of information. I think since Mr Schoeman is here, we may congratulate him.

  MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE MOVED BY MISS S RAJBALLY ON 31 OCTOBER 2002

                           (Announcement)

THE SPEAKER: Hon members, before we proceed, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that last week, on 31 October, the House adopted a motion which had been moved by the hon Miss Rajbally without notice. It concerned illegal marriages of foreigners to South African citizens.

When the signed text became available to the Chair, it became clear that the motion that was adopted was incomplete and did not make sense on its own.

There was reference in the resolution to a document which the member had in her hand which identified a victim of this practice, which she claimed provided proof of such incidents occurring, but that information was not part of the resolution adopted by the House. Without that information, the resolution becomes meaningless, and I am therefore unable to communicate it to the executive.

I would have hoped that members would have noticed this before adopting the motion. I now request parties to look urgently at the decision the House took, as printed in the Minutes of Proceedings of 31 October 2002, and to take whatever steps are necessary to revise the resolution.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr D C MABENA: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC: That the House -

(1) notes that the focus theme of November is ``protection of the environment’’;

(2) further notes that the owner of a South African hake fishing vessel appeared in court on 4 November 2002, facing charges related to illegal harvesting of fish worth R12 million;

(3) believes that the protection of our marine resources is

   (a)  consistent with the national agenda for eradication of poverty,
       environmental protection and sustainable development; and


   (b)  in line with the Johannesburg plan of implementation, which
       seeks to put environmental consideration at the centre of the
       agenda for sustainable development;

(4) commends members of the Scorpions Unit who seized a vessel owned by this company; and

(5) calls on all those involved in fishing to observe laws regulating this industry.

[Applause.]

Mr T D LEE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move:

That the House -

(1) expresses its dismay at the loud-mouthed, overbearing and crude comments of the hon Minister of Sport and Recreation at a meeting with the UCB;

(2) notes that the Minister acknowledges his race-based agenda by stating that he is not interested in players who are white;

(3) resolves that the Government and, in particular the Minister, should set an example by avoiding making racist comments; and

(4) resolves further that if the Minister denies making the remarks attributed to him by the UCB, he agrees to undergo a lie-detection test before apologising to the people of South Africa.

[Applause.] [Interjections.]

Nkosi M W HLENGWA: Madam Speaker, I wish to move on behalf of the IFP at the next sitting …

The SPEAKER: Order! Please proceed, hon member. I was trying to get less noise in the House.

Nkosi M W HLENGWA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I wish to move on behalf of the IFP at the next sitting of Parliament:

That the House -

(1) recognises the social awareness and responsibility of Divpack, which made available to the youth in the Thoyana Clan the following items:

   (a)  15 garden hoes with handles;


   (b)  15 garden rakes;


   (c)  15 garden forks;


   (d)  15 garden spades; and


   (e)  15 watering cans;

(2) believes that -

   (a)  donations such as these definitely go a long way to helping
       people to produce food; and


   (b)  all communities need to rekindle the practice of growing food
       rather than buying it;   (3) wishes to support a return to the practice of each household
   producing as much food as possible; and

(4) acknowledges the lead given by Divpack and challenges other companies to do the same.

Dr B G MBULAWA-HANS: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that a five-month-old baby is in a critical condition after she was raped in Hillbrow on Saturday night;

(2) further notes that the Mankweng police arrested a 17-year-old youth for allegedly raping a three-year-old baby;

(3) believes that these child-rape cases are indicative of an enormous challenge facing our country to rebuild the moral fibre of our society; (4) resolves to continue mobilising the people of South Africa to build a nation that cares for, loves and cherishes its children;

(5) expresses its profound disapproval and outrage, and strongly condemns all those who subject children to these horrible and criminal acts; and

(6) calls on all communities to work with the police to ensure that perpetrators are brought to book.

[Applause.]

Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on the next sitting day of the House on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) notes that Mr David Malatsi and Mr Renier Schoeman of the New NP were appointed as Deputy Ministers of Social Development and of Health, respectively;

(2) furthermore notes that these appointments emanate from an agreement of co-operation between the ANC and the New NP; and

(3) agrees that participatory governance at national, provincial and local level will develop a unity of purpose to confront the great challenges that face our country, such as poverty, unemployment, homelessness, crime and HIV/Aids.

[Applause.]

Mr T ABRAHAMS: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the UDM at the next sitting of this House:

That the House -

(1) notes that the President has appointed two members of the New NP to junior Cabinet positions;

(2) expresses its condemnation of this blatant public consummation of the ANC/New NP bed-hopping at the cost of the taxpayer;

(3) recognises the significance of the New NP being favoured over alliance partner, Cosatu, for portfolios on which the labour federation has campaigned vigorously, often to the embarrassment of the ANC;

(4) expresses its misgivings about the appointment of Mr Malatsi, given the pending public prosecutor case against him; and

(5) acknowledges the dire need to improve capacity in the Health Ministry, and that Mr Schoeman can hardly be described as a person qualified to fill the current managerial vacuum in the Ministry, and that his appointment smacks of political expediency, which the Sowetan of today describes as a ``tactical retreat’’ for the ANC to extricate itself from its mismanagement of HIV/Aids.

The SPEAKER: Order! Order! Hon member, please! You all have 60 seconds to make your point. Your resolutions will be published in full.

Mrs D G NHLENGETHWA: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes a report that 541 children in the Umvoti district in KwaZulua- Natal are eligible for a child support grant, but cannot apply because they do not have birth certificates;

(2) further notes that the Department of Social Development has embarked on a mass campaign to ensure that eligible children are registered for a child support grant;

(3) believes that widening the social grant to absorb more children who are eligible will contribute to alleviating poverty and will reduce the negative social impact of poverty on our communities; and

(4) calls on government officials in the Departments of Social Development and of Home Affairs and volunteers to work towards ensuring that all children are registered.

[Applause.]

Rev K R J MESHOE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the ACDP:

That the House -

(1) notes with surprise allegations that some traditional leaders are threatening to respond with violence if the Government pressed ahead with a Bill that would change land ownership patterns in rural areas;

(2) further notes with appreciation the fact that traditional leaders have over many years brought about order, stability and peaceful communal living in areas under their jurisdiction;

(3) calls on traditional leaders to persuade any of their members who may be talking about violent resistance to change their intended way of resolving their differences by making an urgent appeal to the Government to reconsider their concerns and constructive proposals; and

(4) appeals to Government to delay the passing of the Communal Land Rights Bill and to, one more time, engage traditional leaders in discussions to ensure that their concerns are also taken on board.

Mr N E MAGUBANE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that a 61-year-old pensioner, Zachariah Ntuli, collapsed and died while standing in a queue for his pension grant last Tuesday in Pietermaritzburg;

(2) further notes that the Minister of Social Development, the hon Zola Skweyiya, has promised to investigate claims that the welfare office provides poor quality service to pensioners;

(3) believes that the aged must be treated with dignity and respect;

(4) further believes that public servants and communities must lend a helping hand in ensuring that the collection of pension grants is made as painless as possible for the aged;

(5) welcomes the announcement made by the hon Skweyiya to investigate claims of poor service-delivery; and

(6) calls on public servants to execute their responsibilities in a professional and efficient manner in line with the spirit of Batho Pele.

[Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Hon members, there are too many meetings in the House. There is supposed to be only one.

Mr R J HEINE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  parastatal companies are owned by South Africa's taxpayers and
       are answerable to the taxpayers through the Minister of Public
       Enterprises;


   (b)  the Minister of Public Enterprises is a senior and influential
       member of the ANC; and


   (c)  it is reported that some parastatals are paying R140 000 to the
       ANC to exhibit at the ANC conference in Stellenbosch this year;

(2) believes that this is an improper use of taxpayers’ money to swell the coffers of the ruling party; and

(3) resolves to ask the Public Protector to investigate whether this payment to the ruling party by parastatals is in the best interest of democracy and good governance.

[Interjections.] [Applause.] Mrs I MARS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) notes that it is vitally important for public representatives to have access to information on Government poverty alleviation projects in order to properly fulfil their oversight functions;

(2) expresses its appreciation to the Speaker for the debate on Parliament’s role in fighting poverty, which took place on 31 October 2002 and which highlighted the need for unfettered access to information;

(3) further notes with alarm media allegations of fraud and corruption in poverty relief programmes to the effect that project leaders were enriching themselves at the cost of needy communities; and

(4) underlines the fact that public representatives cannot effectively exercise oversight over poverty alleviation programmes without unconditional access to the relevant information.

Ms N R NTSHULANA-BHENGU: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that the Minister of Sport and Recreation, the hon Ngconde Balfour, has in the past week been subjected to serious attacks which are part of an orchestrated campaign aimed at undermining the transformation process in general and the transformation of sport in particular;

(2) further notes that this campaign has been waged following the Minister’s statement on his commitment to foster transformation in cricket;

(3) believes that this orchestrated campaign is a mischievous and lame attempt aimed at distracting attention from key transformational challenges facing cricket in particular and the country in general, and is driven by those in our country who still harbour some sentimental yearning for the past policies of white racial superiority; and

(4) commends the Minister of Sport and Recreation and the department for standing firm in championing the cause of transformation in sport.

Mr J DURAND: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) notes that political analysts, amongst others, Dr Dirk Kotzé, have said that -

   (a)  the DA's confrontational approach towards the Government may
       have alienated it from blacks; and


   (b)  the hon Leon's attempts to make an impact on the ANC Government
       has failed, partly because his approach was typical of a
       political style not suitable for South African politics;

(2) further notes that the recent revival of far-right extremism shows clearly that some of the DA’s supporters have construed the DA’s fight back'' campaign as afight blacks’’ campaign; and

(3) believes that the DP/DA’s confrontational opposition style has incited the fears of minority groups and is hindering reconciliation in South Africa.

[Applause.]

         FIRE IN JOE SLOVO AND MOOITRAP INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS
                         (Draft Resolution)

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE ANC: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  more than 400 families at Joe Slovo informal settlement and more
       than 300 families at Mooitrap informal settlement were left
       homeless as a result of fire over the weekend; and


   (b)  these unfortunate events affected negatively learners who are
       sitting for their end of the year examinations;

(2) believes that these incidents also point to the need for us to work tirelessly towards eradicating poverty and to speed up the process of providing secure housing for the people; (3) expresses its solidarity with those families who have lost their belongings as a result of fire at the Joe Slovo and Mooitrap informal settlements; and

(4) calls on all the people to lend a helping hand in assisting the victims of these fires to rebuild their homes.

Agreed to.

The SPEAKER: Hon Ministers, it would be appreciated if you were to allow the debate to take place. [Laughter.]

The first item on the Order Paper … Hon Minister! [Laughter.] [Interjections.] Hon Minister of Labour! I have repeatedly appealed to you to heed the debate and to refrain from making private signals across the floor of the House!

      SOUTH AFRICA'S POSITION ON THE POSSIBLE INVASION OF IRAQ

                      (Subject for discussion)

Mr C W EGLIN: Madam Speaker, when this debate was first requested in September, the situation regarding the Iraq issue looked bleak and as if it could rapidly deteriorate into a bloody and protracted war. Since then, a number of events have taken place that have impacted one way or the other on the world, and its concern for peace and stability.

On the positive side, in spite of some hawkish statements coming from the United States and preparations, both logistical and political that that country has made for military action against Iraq, the United States administration has thus far adhered to what could be called the ``United Nations route’’ for endeavouring to resolve this issue.

On the negative side is the bomb blast in Bali, the Phillipines, the hostage drama in Moscow, secular killings in various parts of the world, the bomb attack on a French oil-carrying vessel and the admission by the North Korea that it had reached an advanced stage of developing nuclear capability. These recent events added to existing areas of tension, and the emotions they have evoked have increased the brittleness that is developing in the field of international affairs.

It is against this background of international unease that it is important that the Iraq issue be dealt with decisively and expeditiously. Having said that, let me add that we believe it must also be dealt with firmly within the framework of international law, of which the United Nations Charter is the main instrument.

Much has been said about Saddam Hussein. I shall dispense with some of the rhetoric and simply say that, based on his record of behaviour, since taking power through a military coup more than 20 years ago, his record includes the launching of two wars of aggression against his neighbours, the ruthless suppression of the Kurds and the Shiite Muslim minorities in Iraq, the use of chemical weapons during two of those conflicts, and his non-compliance with numerous UN Council resolutions. Hussein is certainly not someone who could be trusted with weapons of mass destruction.

Taking all the relevent factors into account, the DP believes that the Government should act in the following manner in respect of this issue.

Firstly, the Government has to make it clear that action to find a solution to Iraq must be taken multilaterally, and must be based on the UN Charter and on the tenets of international law. Frankly, military action against Iraq taken without UN sanction, but outside the framework of international law, is bound to have far-reaching unintended consequences, not least of which could be increased polarisation within the international community and an undermining of the fragile unity that has been created around the concept of combating terrorism.

Secondly, the Government must do all in its power that it can to get the UN Security Council to send UN weapons inspectors back to Iraq, armed with a mandate that will enable them to establish, once and for all, whether Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and, if so, where these are, and to arrange for their destruction.

Thirdly, the Government must use its influence in the Non-Aligned Movement to induce the Iraqi government to co-operate fully with the UN Security Council and its weapons inspectors.

Fourthly, the Government must support the UN Security Council in whatever steps it considers necessary to ensure that the weapons inspection process is carried through to completion, and that any weapons of mass destruction are found and destroyed, and any facilities for their manufacture are dismantled.

We hope that it will not come to a stage when the UN Security Council would consider it necessary to authorise the use of force. Yet, cognisance should be taken of the fact that Article 42 of the UN Charter provides for the Security Council to have the power to authorise the use of military force if it considers this to be necessary.

Indeed, the Security Council has authorised the use of force in no fewer than 11 occasions over the past 12 years. Most of these authorisations were in relation to conflicts within countries. Yet, in cases such as East Timor, Kosovo, Afghanistan and the Gulf War, the authorisation involved conflicts that had an international character.

Fifthly, economic sanctions which the United Nations imposed on Iraq as a consequence of the Iraqi government’s repeated refusal to comply with Security Council resolutions have frankly not succeeded with their objective. They have brought hardship to the people of Iraq, but they have not brought a change of behaviour on the part of the Iraqi government.

We believe that it would be in the interest of the Iraqi people, and indeed the world economy, for the sanctions to be ended, but here again the South African Government has a role to play. On the one hand, it should use its influence to persuade the Iraqi government to comply with all of the UN resolutions. On the other hand, it should do what it can to encourage the United Nations to speed up the weapons inspection process so that the issue of Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction can be resolved in its entirety.

We hear today that the Deputy Minister has received an invitation from Saddam Hussein for the hon the President Mbeki to visit Iraq. The DP does not believe this is an appropriate time for South Africa to indulge in goodwill visits of this nature. [Interjections.] However, it is a time for straightforward upfront diplomatic actions in which the focus of South African communication with Iraq must be to persuade Saddam Hussein to play his part in resolving the crisis that has developed around him.

The Iraq issue is one of deep international concern. There is a concern about the threat to peace and stability. There is a concern about the imminent danger of war and its consequences. There is also a concern that the established structures of world government might not be able to cope with the complex issues that face the globalised world today.

Indeed, the crisis that has developed around Iraq has, in fact, become a watershed issue for the United Nations as an instrument of world government. The UN Charter charges the United Nations Security Council with the responsibility for dealing, not only with acts of aggression and breaches of peace, but also to take action in respect of threats to peace.

If the United Nations shows that it has the will and the effectiveness to discharge this responsibility in respect of the Iraq issue, we believe that it would enhance its stature and establish its viability as a key element of world government.

As the world’s economy becomes globalised, as national borders become less significant in ordering societies, as the destiny of nations becomes increasingly intertwined, so it becomes essential for us to have an effective and accepted world body that can act to ensure that the people of the world can live in peace.

One of the tasks of South Africa must be to ensure that the United Nations is reformed, as it may be necessary to reflect the changed circumstances since it was formed some 56 years ago. Out of this crisis, it becomes an effective and accepted instrument of world government, bringing peace and stability to mankind. [Applause.]

Mr M RAMGOBIN: Madam Speaker, members of Parliament, comrades and ladies and gentlemen, we in the ANC, given our history, today beseech the people of America in particular, and the world at large, that there must be peace and friendship in the world. Without this, we as humans, in pursuit of power, avarice and greed will one day destroy this planet totally. If we subscribe to the view that we do not inherit this earth, but we borrow it from our children, then it is necessary for us to note that the impending invasion of Iraq by the United States of America will be a contributing factor to deny us the opportunity to co-exist. I am confident that all South Africans, regardless of their political and religious persuasions, do not want war.

We rejected war and violence to sort out our own differences here. It has to be done everywhere and every time. If we as human beings have to leave a heritage for succeeding generations, then let it be pinned with peace and friendship, co-existence and mutual respect, not religious bigotry, hate and prejudice, avarice and domination.

South Africa does not ignore the menace of terrorism, nor do we ignore the development of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. We abhor and reject them, whether they are in the possession of Iraq, the United States of America or any other nation. This is why we voluntarily dismantled whatever we had that could have contributed to mass destruction, in this case, our nuclear capacity.

We want to say to the people of the United States and Britain that their leaders in government are wrong, because, in most countries of the world, we know that, on the question of terrorism, the mujahedeen was created by the United States in 1979 to fight the Soviet Union. An estimated 100 000 militants from 40 countries were trained in Pakistan by the CIA. Bin Laden is one of them.

Whilst we hold no brief for Iraq with regard to chemical or nuclear weapons and the disregard for a human rights culture, and assuming that Saddam is a brutal despot, the United States itself enthusiastically provided his regime with the technology to develop weapons of mass destruction until 1991, including nuclear and chemical weapons. If developing these weapons is enough to trigger an American invasion, then Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, China and even Israel are the United States’ so-called legitimate targets.

And had we in South Africa not voluntarily abandoned our nuclear capacity, we too could have been a target if we did not toe the American line or if we had an abundance of oil.

Our request to the world, through the United Nations, is to adopt policies that facilitate and enhance the scope of a global community, respecting diversity and rooted in universal values.

While South Africa acknowledges the claim that the United States has the right to seek out terrorists who attacked her on September 11, we reject the claim by the Bush administration that there is a clash of civilisations, as if Saddam represented one, and Bush and Blair the other. If it were so, then the Saudi, Kuwaiti, Pakistani and Turkish alliance with the United States would be hard to understand. In this context, as early as 1999 a reputed writer in the Foreign Affairs Journal wrote:

Whilst the US regularly denounces various countries, in this case Iraq, as a rogue country, in the eyes of many countries, it is becoming the rogue superpower - the single greatest threat to their societies.

If this is legitimate, the United States must immediately engage in and be part of a total ban on nuclear arms and disarmament. She must sign the Kyoto Protocol. She must recognise through her deeds the nature, role and the legitimacy of the United Nations.

Without being an apologist for Iraq or Saddam Hussein, the world has not forgotten that it was the United States that bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and that it was the United States that used napalm in Vietnam.

Today I believe people everywhere, especially American and British, have to realise that the United States’ foreign policy is characterised by layer upon layer of hypocrisy, deceit and media manipulation in the service of one superpower hegemony.

All South Africans, regardless of party affiliation, are committed to good governance and democracy. The arrogance of interfering with the sovereignty of Iraq, with total disregard of the United Nations, and its unambiguous support and creation of the Mabutus, Savimbis, Yah Yah Khans and the Sauds is the highest form of hypocrisy. I do not believe that the vast majority of Americans can support this, even if these kinds of double standards are supported by the Rumsfields, Cheneys and Rices of the Unites States’ administration.

With the disintegration of the Warsaw pact countries and the rise of American unipolarism, we in Africa, who have acted for the greater good of the continent and the world, and who were and are seen to be limiting our own sovereignty by, among other things, a peer review to judge and act on our misdemeanours with respect to democracy, peace, security and stability, take serious note of the United States administration’s disregard of a review and overview process of the United Nations in respect of the United States’ own international belligerency as the big brother dictating terms to the rest of us.

The near annihilation of Iraq’s educational, health care and social service system, known to have been among the best in the Middle East during the Gulf War, cannot be any less a disaster than the consequences of September

1. And if one has to go one step further on the consequences of the the Gulf War, then the estimated loss of the Arab states in 1991 was $800 billion, of which $200 billion affected Iraq alone. Another consequence of Gulf War was that the United Stated succeeded in strengthening its economic position, not only at the expense of the Middle East, but also at the expense of other competitors, above all, Britain and France. So I would like to ask the hon Eglin: What is new? Perhaps Blair, too, now seeks the spoils of war, in this case, oil.

Gleaning from the report by Blair on Saddam, he says:

Unless we face up to the threat, not only do we risk undermining the authority of the United Nations, whose resolutions he defies, but more importantly, we place at risk the lives and prosperity of our own people …

It is my belief that it will do British integrity well if such a stance was taken with Israel’s defiance of the United Nations resolutions and that country’s total onslaught on the lives of Palestinian children, women and men.

To break the chain of violence in the Middle East, we seek to do so with an invocation to our own morality on the one hand and our commitment to ensure that Africa’s resuscitation is not impeded on the other.

This is why President Mbeki, both as our President and the Chairperson of NAM, is in contact with Iraq. This is why Iraq seeks our intervention. Our commitment to peace, justice, human rights and a stable global community is our strength and our vision. Just as we ask Iraq to commit herself to peace and the dismantling of all the arsenals of mass destruction, we also ask the United States and her allies to do so. These arsenals are not safe, nor are they justifiable in any one country’s hands, but especially not the United States, which has unleashed nuclear weapons and napalm onto our planet which has since become a global village.

Lastly, the ideal of human civilisation does not and cannot be allowed to lie in the isolation of arrogant independence, but in the sisterhood of interdependence of individuals as well as nations, in all spheres of thought and activity. I quote one called Stephen Ambrose to contextualise what I have just said, in his writings in Rise to Globalism:

The United States has a military alliance with 50 nations, over a million soldiers, airmen and sailors stationed in more than 100 countries, and an offensive capacity sufficient to destroy the world many times over. It has used military force to intervene in Indochina, Lebanon, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Central America and the Persian Gulf, supported an invasion of Cuba, distributed enormous quantities of arms to friendly governments around the world, and fought costly wars in Korea and Vietnam. But, despite all the money spent on armaments and no matter how far outwards America extended her power, America’s national security was constantly in jeopardy.

It is hoped that we as South Africans contextualise the true significance of the present crisis that our human race is facing in Iraq, and hat we do not isolate and treat the symptoms, but that we treat the root cause. I would like to thank the hon Eglin for having the vision to initiate this debate, and I hope and pray to God that Mr Eglin and his party will be at one with us to ensure that peace and harmony in our world exist, especially in Iraq. [Applause.]

Mr E J LUCAS: Madam Speaker, in the aftermath of the 11 September tragedy, American feelings of revenge against terrorists and their desire to rid the world of these faceless perpetrators of random violence can easily be justified. We can also easily relate to the suffering experienced by Americans during the attacks on their homeland. It should also not come as any surprise that the level of loss of life and destruction of property, synonymous with American global power, could drive leaders and followers to extremes.

Notwithstanding the dreadful events of 11 September, there rests a duty on all world leaders and governments to preserve global peace. We can understand the American so-called war against terror, but care should be taken not to simply equate this drive to root out terrorism with military action against Iraq.

Yes, there are fears that Saddam Hussein is supporting terrorist groups, and increasing fears that he is attempting to produce weapons of mass destruction that may end up in the hands of terrorists. Their targets would no doubt include American interests and citizens. However, if Iraq is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction and this fact can be determined without any shadow of a doubt, then the international community must take the appropriate action or mandate its members to do so collectively or individually. The decision should not be left to the Americans, but to the Security Council of the United Nations.

Recently, the Iraqi government indicated its willingness to accept the return of UN weapons inspectors and to grant them unconditional access to suspect facilities. It is no surprise that America and Britain view this offer with a large measure of scepticism, based on Iraq’s past performance.

They may have a case. We should not forget that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people and in the war against Iran, or that he invaded another sovereign country, or that he made every effort to thwart the UN weapons inspectors between 1991 and 1998. However, if he should attempt to do so again, the UN must take action and see to it that Iraq sticks to the agreement and its commitment to allow weapons inspections. This should not be left to a unilateral decision by the Americans. Russia and other countries that have regular dealings with Iraq should also make every effort to persuade Saddam Hussein to honour his commitment to allow weapons inspections. They should impress upon him that if he does not, he will be isolated and military action will follow.

The last thing the world needs is a war in the Middle East. It is historically one of the most volatile regions in the world, and its volatility impacts on the entire world. The world economy has just started to show signs of recovery from the 11 September attacks. A war with Iraq will undo much of the recent recovery. Furthermore, a war with Iraq that has not been properly mandated by the United Nations will have wider implications for relations between the West and the Arab nations in the Middle East, and will no doubt increase anti-West and anti-American sentiment among extremists and fundamentalists. This could easily spawn a whole new generation of terrorists.

Recently, the British government released a so-called dossier containing the case for a war against Iraq, but analysts and experts generally believe the dossier makes a strong case for weapons inspections and not for war.

The international community should take note and ensure that new weapons inspections are started as soon as possible, and that Iraq complies fully with Security Council resolutions relating to inspections and weapons of mass destruction. However, it should also make it clear to Iraq that if it did not comply fully, an international coalition would be mandated to use force to ensure compliance and the destruction of any weapons of mass destruction.

Dr B L GELDENHUYS: I fully agree with the previous speaker. If Saddam Hussein once again fails to comply with UN resolutions, action should be taken against him.

With all due respect, former President Nelson Mandela has it wrong when he says the USA is a threat to world peace. [Interjections.] The person who is a threat to world peace is Saddam Hussein who for the past 11 years has blatantly defied 16 UN resolutions demanding the destruction of all weapons of mass destruction; who has already used chemical and biological weapons, not only against his enemies, but also against his own people; a man capable of making his deadly arsenal available to terrorist groups, with devastating consequences for the free world, which could even dwarf the September 11 catastrophe.

The people who also pose a threat to world peace are those members of the UN Security Council who for years have helped Iraq defy international law which they themselves imposed. The debate today should therefore not be whether the USA should attack Iraq, but whether the UN Security Council should not, once and for all, live up to its responsibilities in terms of international law.

Resolution 1284 has become null and void and a new, tougher and much more comprehensive resolution forcing Iraq to destroy all weapons of mass destruction is needed, which could prevent a unilateral attack by the USA on Iraq. Should Saddam Hussein then once again defy international law, Article 43 of the UN Charter should immediately come into effect, obliging, inter alia, all members of the United Nations to give military and other forms of assistance to the Security Council for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. Naturally, South Africa will also have to meet its obligations in terms of this resolution, and a position of neutrality then will be out of the question.

The onus to prevent a unilateral attack by the USA on Iraq therefore rests squarely on the shoulders of the UN and Iraq itself. The USA in turn should also give a second thought to a unilateral attack on Iraq, because it may not serve the best interests of that country.

The global war against terrorism is far from over because Osama bin Laden is still at large. The tragic events in Bali are proof of that. A unilateral attack on Iraq by the USA may terminate the global coalition against terrorism, without which the war against terrorism will not be won. An article in the Financial Times of September 24 pointed out that the most lethal weapon against tyrants are not so much military action, but the people who suffer under them.

Dit word bevestig deur die gebeure in Oos-Europa. Toe miljoene onderdruktes vreedsaam in die strate op regeringsgeboue afgestap het, kon geen kommunistiese diktator of weermag hulle keer nie. Dit mag dalk net die moeite werd wees vir die VSA om benewens planne vir militêre aksie, ook moeite te doen om opposisiekragte binne Irak te mobiliseer.

In die Bybel is daar ‘n interessante verhaal in dié verband. [Tussenwerpsels] Toe Joab, veggeneraal van Dawid, ‘n stad beleër het, het ‘n vrou hom gevra hoekom hy so ‘n mooi stad wil vernietig. Hy sê toe hy is net op soek na ‘n booswig, Seba, en wil nie die stad vernietig nie. Die vrou gooi toe die kop van Seba oor die stadsmuur en die beleg van die stad is dadelik beëindig. Saddam Hussein se kop moet spreekwoordelik deur sy eie mense oor die stadsmuur gegooi word sodat Irak weer sy regmatige plek in die internasionale gemeenskap kan inneem. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[This is confirmed by the events in Eastern Europe. When millions of oppressed people marched peacefully down the streets to government buildings, no communist dictator or armed forces could stop them. It might just be worthwhile for the USA, in addition to plans for military action, to be at pains to mobilise opposition forces within Iraq as well.

There is an interesting story in this regard in the Bible. [Interjections.] When Joab, field general of David, laid siege to a city, a woman asked him why he wanted to destroy such a beautiful city. He replied that he was only looking for a criminal, Seba, and did not want to destroy the city. At this the woman threw Seba’s head over the city wall and the siege of the city was immediately ended. Saddam Hussein’s head should proverbially be thrown over the city wall by his own people so that Iraq can once again take its legitimate place in the international community.] In conclusion, it would not be in the best interests of South Africa should President Mbeki accept Saddam Hussein’s invitation to visit Iraq.

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, I wish to ask you, please, to acknowledge the presence in our midst of a delegation from the Australian parliament, led by Senator Tierney and the deputy delegation leader, Miss Ellis, and members of that parliament. [Applause.] We welcome them to this National Assembly meeting.

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, in his speech here this afternoon, the hon Colin Eglin said that the weapons inspection in Iraq should be speeded up. However, I wish to direct the attention of the House to the fact that the search for an Iraq resolution in the United Nations began on 12 September when US President George W Bush challenged world leaders at the UN General Assembly to deal with Iraq’s failure to comply with resolutions, demanding the elimination of its weapons of mass destruction or to stand aside as the United States acted. That is very important to take note of that.

Furthermore, on 31 October, US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said in Washington that the debate would likely be concluded towards the end of this week, but he stressed that US action in Iraq will not be decided by the United Nations. There is nothing, and I quote him, ``that we would propose in this resolution or we would find acceptable in a resolution that would handcuff the President of the United States in doing what he feels he must do’’, Powell said, reiterating the administration’s view that the US Congress had already given its authorisation for US military action against Iraq. Now, who is really holding up the process of UN-sponsored weapons inspections?

I therefore wish to take issue with the hon Geldenhuys. In no way do we see, in the current climate, the Iraqi government as being a threat to world peace. A threat to world peace is a war-mongering George W Bush, who is willing and prepared to cast aside the Charter of the United Nations in order to satisfy his personal ego.

Judging the record of George W Bush, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Iraq is going to be attacked by the United States, irrespective of whether there is a UN resolution or not. And that is why we believe the position taken by the South African Government, namely that any action against Iraq should be UN-sponsored, is the correct stand and needs to be supported. However, let us look at what Iraq says. They maintain that they have no weapons of mass destruction and that all such weapons were destroyed. [Interjections.]

Ek dink daardie lid lieg. [I think that the member is lying.]

Let me rather come to the end now, because this thing is flashing. There are going to be people in this House …

Mr T D LEE: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr T D LEE: Die agb lid hier - as hy net sal sit - het na een van ons lede verwys en gesê hy lieg. [The hon member here - if only he would sit down - referred to one of our members and said he was lying.]

Lieg'' in English, Madam Speaker, islie’’, and I think that is unparliamentary.

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, I have an immediate response for the Chair … [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, you will wait for me to rule.

An HON MEMBER: Sit down, man!

The SPEAKER: Order! Did you in fact refer in the terms that have been raised in the point of order?

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, whilst I was speaking, a member from that side … The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, I am not asking for a debate. Will you kindly withdraw the words you used which amounted to ``you lie’’?

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, I was told that I am …

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, you will abide by my ruling!

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, fine.

Hy lieg nie; hy vertel ‘n onwaarheid. [Gelag.] [He is not lying; he is telling an untruth. [Laughter.]]

Madam Speaker, may I just conclude?

The SPEAKER: Order! No, you may sit down.

Mr T D LEE: Madam Speaker, he did not withdraw his statement. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Well, if you all will let me, I am about to say that. Mr Abram, I asked you to withdraw the words you used, please.

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, not because that hon member …

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member! You will withdraw without any debate. Hon member! Will you withdraw?

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word ``lieg’’ out of respect for the Chair.

The SPEAKER: Order! Thank you.

Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, I want to conclude. There are members in this House who would like to outpace Tony Blair. To them I just want to quote the little Afrikaans song:

Waai jou stertjie, brakkie, waai dit heen en weer; waai jou stertjie, brakkie, waai dit op en neer.

[Laughter.] [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Order, hon members!

Adv Z L MADASA: Madam Speaker, the Iraqi regime’s record on human rights is indefensible according to our own Nepad criteria, but the issue is how to deal with the Iraqi regime, and we submit that this should be done according to the United Nations’ decision.

The South African Government has affirmed the right of the US to strike Iraq in self-defence. The Government has also stated that such a strike must be based on evidence that Iraq is involved in terrorism, was involved in the 9/11 attack and is producing weapons of mass destruction, and, if the attack is appropriate, it must be authorised by the UN.

We in the ACDP believe that this position accords with international law, but we would like to add that Iraq must allow unconditional inspection of its weapons. The ACDP does not agree that the following considerations are good reasons to start a war: selfish interests, a need for regime change and Iraq being part of the so-called ``axis of evil’’. As Christian democrats, we would like to caution against declaring other states evil, as that is a recipe for religious wars and the loss of innocent lives, and is contrary to religious tolerance and world peace.

All democratic and peace-loving nations have a collective responsibility to act responsibly in order to isolate extremists and thereby discourage international terrorism. As Christian democrats and friends of the US, we urge them to think about innocent women and children before starting a war. Women and children are inevitably always at the receiving end of a war.

The US is an important trading partner and a friend of South Africa. Therefore we in the ACDP will not join the anti-American chant. We need the USA. We ask its leaders, as our friends, to subject themselves to peer review by the United Nations. We say to President Bush: Let any action on Iraq have the blessing of the United Nations.

Dr P W A MULDER: Mevrou die Speaker, die onderwerp is ``Wat is Suid-Afrika se posisie ten opsigte van ‘n inval in Irak?’’ Die antwoord is glad nie so eenvoudig en maklik as wat sommige mag dink nie.

In die ou dae van die Koue Oorlog was die wêreld baie eenvoudiger. Daar was Oosbloklande aan die een kant, met die Sowjet-Unie as leier, en die Weste aan die ander kant met Amerika as leier. Afrika en die onverbonde lande as ‘n derde blok was ver bo hul ekonomiese en militêre mag belangrik, want in die magsbalans tussen Oos en Wes kon hulle die deurslag gee. Met die val van die Berlynse Muur en die Sowjet-Unie is die Koue Oorlog vir altyd verby, en dié twee supermoondhede en twee blokke is daarmee heen.

Vandag het ons een supermoondheid - Amerika. In plaas van ‘n Oos-Wes indeling van lande, deel Amerika lande in as vir Amerika'' ofteen Amerika’’; vir terrorisme'' ofteen terrorisme’’. Pakistan se regering is nie demokraties verkies nie, maar hy word as aan die kant van Amerika gesien en teen terreur, en daarom is hy reg. Irak se regering is ook nie demokraties verkies nie, maar hy word as aan die verkeerde kant gesien en daarom is hy vir terreur.

Die VF maak beswaar teen Amerika se dubbele standaarde. Die indruk word geskep dat die VSA sy magsposisie in die wêreld misbruik net vir eie gewin misbruik, en dikwels as ‘n boelie gesien - daaraan is geen twyfel nie. Maar terselfdertyd is Irak, met sy ondemokratiese regering, met sy vergrype van menseregte en veral sy onderdrukking van die Koerde as ‘n minderheidsgroep en ‘n geskiedenis van invalle in Koeweit ook nie vir die VF aanvaarbaar nie.

Internasionale politiek is nie logies nie. Internasionale politiek het geen morele standaarde of hoë reëls nie. Kom ons kies nie vir Amerika'' of vir Irak’’ nie, maar ons kies ``vir Suid-Afrika’’. Wat beteken dit? Dit beteken dat die reël wat geld, is wat in belang is van Suid-Afrika. Dit is om ekonomiese redes dom van Suid-Afrika om Amerika as ‘n vyand te hê, maar dit is nie verkeerd vir Suid-Afrika om Amerika te kritiseer as hy alleen wil ingryp aan die ander kant nie. Terselfdertyd sê ek egter vir lede dit is dom om te naby aan Irak te beweeg in hierdie stadium; dit is nie in Suid- Afrika se belang nie. Jammer oor al die morele argumente na watter kant ookal.

Die Regering moet oppas dat sy onderrok nie uithang wanneer hy sy keuse maak nie. Dit is ‘n gevaarlike spel. Suid-Afrika se keuse is ons keuse; kom ons kies vir Suid-Afrika. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Dr P W A MULDER: Madam Speaker, the subject is ``What is South Africa’s position in respect of an invasion into Iraq?’’ The answer is not as simple and easy as some people may think.

In the olden days of the Cold War the world was much simpler. There were Eastern Bloc countries on the one hand, with the Soviet Union as the leader, and the West on the other hand, with America as the leader. Africa and the nonaligned countries were, as a third bloc, important for over and above their economic and military power, because in the power balance between East and West they could tip the balance. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, the Cold War became a thing of the past and these two superpowers and two blocs followed suit.

Today we have one superpower - America. Instead of an East-West division of countries, America is dividing countries into those for America'' or against America’’; for terrorism'' oranti-terrorism’’. Pakistan’s government was not democratically elected, but it is regarded as an ally of America and opposed to terrorism, and therefore it is right. The government of Iraq was also not democratically elected, but it is regarded as being on the wrong side and therefore it is in favour of terrorism.

The FF objects to America’s double standards. The impression is being created that the USA is abusing its position of power in the world solely for its own gain, and America is often seen as a bully - there is no doubt about that. However, at the same time Iraq, with its undemocratic government, with its violation of human rights and especially its oppression of the Kurds as a minority group and a history of invasions into Quwait, is equally unacceptable to the FF.

International politics is not logical. International politics has no moral standards or higher rules. Let us not choose for America'' orfor Iraq’’, but ``for South Africa’’. What does this mean? It means that the applicable rule is what is important to South Africa. For economical reasons it would be stupid of South Africa to regard America as an enemy, but on the other hand, it is not wrong for South Africa to criticise America for wanting to intervene on its own. At the same time, however, I am telling members that it is stupid to move too close to Iraq at this stage; it is not in the interests of South Africa. It is a pity about all the moral arguments in whatever direction.

The Government must guard against letting its petticoat hang out when it makes its choice. This is a dangerous game. South Africa’s choice is our choice; let us choose for South Africa.]

Mrs F MAHOMED: Madam Speaker, in the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful, I wish to remind Dr Mulder that terrorism is terrorism, and it has neither side nor boundary. So, he must remember that.

Not so long ago, world political leaders met at the United Nations General Assembly to commit themselves to co-operating regarding matters of maintaining peace, justice and prosperity throughout our universe. This united resolve to create a world free of pain and oppression, free of war and violent conflict, and free of poverty and injustice gives hope to all. However, the blatant defiance of the United Nation’s resolutions by the United States is a cause for concern as the organ’s integrity and credibility is at stake.

The US needs to understand that all countries are interdependent and need to co-exist by recognising the global challenges of diverse nations. Respect for all sovereign states and equitable treatment of all nations is imperative for ensuring world peace. The US also needs to introspect by reviewing its foreign policy objectives. No nation state or so-called ``superpower’’ has the right to adopt a carte blanche approach or to interfere with the integrity of any country or impose its will on the people.

It is definitely not a prerogative of any country to choose a leader of another country. No arbitrary military bombardment can be ordered by a military boss of any country on the basis of sheer speculation by a certain nation state.

Iraq has agreed that the United Nations inspections can continue unconditionally, and many believe that Iraq no longer has the industrial base necessary to produce weapons of mass destruction. The question is: Why is the US still threatening a unilateral invasion of Iraq? It should allow the UN to complete its inspection. It is important that the US should not rely on baseless speculation and pre-empt any invasion.

The seriousness of an invasion of Iraq by the US will have disastrous and catastrophic consequences in and around the whole world. Indeed, this will have a ripple effect on our own country’s economy and it will hamper our Nepad and our African Union objectives.

It will divide and destabilise the Middle Eastern region, and give rise to sporadic civil unrest, which will explode into devastating and undesirable consequences. Severe repercussions will destroy many economies, which will have direct socioeconomic implications globally. Armed conflict and indiscriminate military attacks, equivalent to war crimes, have already resulted in massive devastation where we have witnessed children dying in the arms of their mothers.

It is interesting that the US’s interest in cheap oil works in tandem with its military budget. The defence industries in the US continue to profit hugely by the naval blockade in the Gulf. The mighty corporations continue to produce new warplanes, tanks, bombs and ammunition that compel them to continue war in regions without respecting international humanitarian law. It is true that every 10 years there is a need to test its weapons and technology to ensure its utility within the context of a military strategy. We all know that the weaponry was tested in the context of Afghanistan.

We need to remind ourselves that the United Nations Charter stipulates that war no longer constitutes an acceptable means of settling disputes between states. The credibility of multilateral organs will be threatened if nation states arrogantly ignore the role of such important institutions. The US continues to say that they will continue to act against Iraq, with or without the United Nations. The question then remains: What respect or authenticity remains for multilateralism? The double standards are self- evident and emphatic when the so-called `superpower’ pontifies baseless rhetoric about good governance, democracy, justice and equality.

Iraq has not fully recovered from the devastation and ravages of the Gulf War. We all know that. About 144 documented bombings in Iraq by the US and British war planes in 1999 killed hundreds of innocent civilians, including women and children. About 200 to 300 casualties have been reported. The civilian infrastructure which was targeted is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. Sewer systems, telecommunications, oil refineries and power plants were destroyed and the country has never recovered. [Interjections.] If the hon members pay attention to what has to be said, to what is the truth and what can be seen by the whole world, they will learn what is known except by themselves. [Interjections.]

It needs to be noted that before 1999, Iraq’s economy was booming, but after the devastation of war and sanctions, the country has suffered huge losses and has severe food shortages. Although the UN’s humanitarian relief programme ``Oil for Food’’ has only averted the famine, chronic malnutrition still continues.

Iraq’s environmental damage has severe repercussions on human health and welfare. The UN sanctions on specific medicines caused hundreds of people to die of cancer and other related diseases. Even lead pencils are not allowed as it is assumed that weapons are made of such commodities. Assumptions can be very dangerous.

The acquisition of oil by the world’s superpower is the single most important threat to world peace. It needs to be recognised that Iraq has 112 billion barrels of undiscovered oil, and it is the second largest reserve after Saudi Arabia. The US has been excluded from Iraqi oilfields since the late 1980s.

Russia and China are both interested in Iraqi oil, and the US and Russia have signed an energy treaty.

The former Director of the CIA, James Woolsley said:

If France and Russia assist in moving Iraq towards decent government, then we will ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them, but if they throw in their lot with Saddam then it will be impossible to convince the new government to work with them.

Again, it is ironical that camouflaged rhetoric about justice, transparency and good governance by certain leaders seems to be interpreted in a very peculiar way.

I must remind the hon Geldenhuys of something, and I urge him to reflect somewhat on the fact that Israel has continuously flouted UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and it has nuclear weapons and reasons to want to use them.

The SPEAKER: Hon Ms Mahomed, will you please take a seat?

Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Madam Speaker, is the hon member prepared to take a question? [Interjections.]

Ms F MAHOMED: No, I am not. I do not have the time. I will address the member’s question later.

The US is silent about regime change in Israel, but rather talks about leadership change in Palestine. Why should Israel have these weapons when Iraq is not even allowed to have the capability to produce them?

We unequivocally condemn terrorism in all its forms. Throughout the past 200 years, some governments continue to subscribe to the idea of ``the conspiracy of the few’’ to hang on to the power they hold. I must reiterate that, at all times, policies that continue to promote global insecurity and clashes among cultures, will not only destabilise the entire region of the Middle East, but will continue to point towards chaos and the destruction of all peace efforts by all people in the whole wide world.

We must emphasize that a unilateral invasion of Iraq is not the answer to ensuring world peace, security and stability. We need to respect and uphold our commitment towards multilateral organs, and terrorism must be dealt with holistically so that peace and security prevail for all human beings. [Applause.]

Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Madam Speaker, the possible invasion of Iraq by the United States government and its allies poses a serious threat to world peace and stability. The effects of such actions will be felt for many years to come long after the planned attack. An invasion of Iraq has the potential to divide nations, and such an action will, at the very least, be counterproductive to the mission of disarming it, if Iraq even possesses such weapons of mass destruction.

It will also be a drawback for a fight against terrorism and any form of aggression by a state that wishes to create its own world order. South Africa’s position should be informed by a need to create a world that is free from biological warfare threats, and by contributing to the destruction of such weapons through dialogue, as violence breeds violence. We have to do our bit to save the world from the brink of a possible third world war. If ever President Saddam Hussein cared for his people and has nothing to hide, he will comply. It is we as South Africans who need to lobby the United Nations and other states to give sufficient time to the Iraqis to seriously consider the implications of noncompliance.

An invasion of Iraq will invariably give credence to other terrorist organisations to continue with their activities to destabilise the post- Cold War delicate world peace. How we fight world aggressors is more important than the actual attack. We should desist from attacking countries perceived to be a threat to world peace at the slightest suspicion or provocation.

Nations of the world that are committed to world peace should join forces and fight for the sake of humanity and peace through peaceful means.

Rona ka Setswana ra re tsielala. Gaabo motho go thebe phatswa. Bana ba motho ba tshwarana ka matsogo lefifing. [In Setswana we say farewell. There is no place like home. In difficult times, siblings stick together.]

Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, it is the PAC’s view that in order to eradicate poverty and accelerate economic development, especially in the former colonised countries of Africa, there must be peace in the world. The governments of America and Britain are endangering world peace by their intended aggression against Iraq. If American and British governments want any action taken against Iraq, then this action must be authorised by the United Nations Security Council, according to the Charter of the UN.

As permanent members of the Security Council, Britain and America must be exemplary in upholding the UN Charter and mankind’s ideals for peace and prosperity in the world. The PAC salutes the People’s Republic of China, Russia and France, permanent members of the Security Council, which are upholding the UN Charter and opposing any unilateral actions by America and Britain regarding Iraq. Iraq is under threat of being attacked because it is believed to be manufacturing or possessing weapons of mass destruction. Seven countries in the world, including Britain and America, possess weapons of mass destruction. It must also not be forgotten that, when the apartheid regime tried to develop nuclear weapons here, Britain and America did not threaten any attack on apartheid South Africa. Instead, they turned a blind eye, just as they do regarding Israel. Iraq is prepared to be inspected, but are the military arsenals of Britain and America open for inspection? In fact, Tony Blair should be making peace with the IRA in Northern Ireland instead of threatening war on Iraq. George Bush must make peace with North Korea, which has admitted that it is developing its nuclear weapons.

The PAC is against double standards in international affairs. If this is allowed, the UN will collapse in the same way its predecessor, the League of Nations, was destroyed. The PAC is opposed to aggression against Iraq. Izwe lethu. [Our country.] Ms S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, the possible invasion of Iraq has been quite a worry since the world has experienced so much bloodshed of late. Afghanistan, though liberated in many ways, is still suffering from the aftershocks of the United States invasion and the attack to flush out terrorists thought to be harbouring in the area. Though the need to get a handle on terrorism is urgent, the sacrifice of many innocent lives is not acceptable.

Since the September 11 attacks, there has been much hostility and tiptoeing locally. Iraq’s possible involvement in nuclear arms is questionable, to which a threat of invasion and bloodshed is extreme. The MF understands the USA’s panic and precautionary steps to protect its people, much influenced by the September 11 tragedy. However, the attack on Islam, rather than persons responsible for the attacks, has enraged Muslims globally.

The Israeli-Palestinian battles do not make such hostility any easier. Perpetrators are being attacked and pinpointed by their religion. Global relations need to be handled more strictly. If anything holds a possibility of resulting in bloodshed, it should be avoided at all costs. Matters can and should be dealt with in a civilised manner. Action may be taken only in extreme cases.

The MF supports our President in complimenting the Iraqi leader for allowing the weapons inspections. If anything, this shows that compromise is possible and guns should be kept at bay.

Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, at school I learned about claustrophobia and in Parliament about xenophobia. Today I learned from the hon Ramgobin and the hon Saddam Abram about something called ``Yankeyphobia’’. [Laughter.]

Dit het die afgelope tyd mode geword om president Bush en Amerika te demoniseer. Die AEB waarsku ernstig teen ‘n ongegronde klimaatskepping teen die VSA en ‘n gepaardgaande blindheid vir die gevaar wat Saddam Hoessein vir wêreldvrede inhou. [Tussenwerpsels.] Die AEB herinner skeptici daaraan dat die wêreld in die vroeë-30s ook maar die oë toegemaak het vir die magsopbou in Nazi-Duitsland, met vernietigende gevolge vir die hele wêreld.

President Bush het die probleem van Irak en die gevaar wat dit vir wêreldvrede inhou vierkantig in die hande van die VN geplaas. Hy het ‘n legitieme beroep op die VN gedoen om òf sy eie geloofwaardigheid in te boet òf toe te sien dat sy eie resolusies met betrekking tot Irak eerbiedig word. Wat is daarmee verkeerd? [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[It has recently become fashionable to demonise President Bush and America. The AEB cautions in earnest against creating an unjustified climate against the USA, with a concomitant blindness to the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to world peace. [Interjections.] The AEB reminds the sceptics about the early 30s when the world also turned a blind eye to the build-up of power in Nazi Germany, which had devastating consequences for the whole world.

President Bush undeniably put the problem with Iraq, and the threat it poses to world peace, squarely in the hands of the UN. He made a legitimate call on the UN to either forfeit its own credibility or to ensure that its own resolutions with reference to Iraq are respected. What is wrong with that? [Interjections.]]

The AEB deplores reports of Iraq’s continuing efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iraq’s failure to co-operate fully and honestly with the UN’s efforts to monitor its compliance with Security Council resolutions. There should be no doubt about the realities of the situation.

Saddam Hussein is a brutal and dangerous dictator who is guilty of the most reprehensible acts against his own country and against countries in the region. He deserves no sympathy, and realistic action should be taken by the international community to ensure that he cannot further threaten his neighbours or humanity in general. He definitely does not deserve a courtesy visit from our President.

The AEB does not believe that the USA should launch any unilateral preventative action against Iraq without a mandate from the UN and without substantial support from the international community. On the other hand, the UN, as the responsible institution, has to take a firm stance against Iraq. They must have the will to enforce it.

Dan is die bal volkome in die hande van Hoessein en kan al die ander mense

• die agb Abram en Ramgobin ingesluit - ophou kla. [Tussenwerpsels.] [Then the ball is entirely in Hussein’s court and everybody else - including hon Abraham and Ramgobin - can stop complaining.] [Interjections.]]

Mr S E OPPERMAN: Madam Speaker, it will be a grievous fault if anyone of us falls into the trap of megalomania or blameshifting, and in the process underestimates the complexity and gravity of the situation under discussion. Certain reports reveal that UN inspectors, when poking around in Iraq after the Gulf War, were shocked at the extent of Bagdad’s commitment to chemical weapons. According to the report they found 50 chemical-filled ballistic warheads, 12 694 mustard gas-filled artillery shells and over 10 000 Sarin-filled 122mm artillery and rocket warheads; and 300 tonnes of bulk agent for use.

Following the departure of the weapons inspectors in 1998, there has been an accumulation of intelligence indicating that Iraq is making concerted covert efforts to acquire dual use of technology and materials with nuclear applications. Iraq’s known holdings of processed uranium are under international supervision. There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme or known nuclear power plants. It therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium.

It is also an open secret that one of the other countries in the Middle East has stockpiled thousands of bombs with Sarin and VX-nerve agents. One of the other countries has a small but fully deployed nuclear arsenal with several delivery systems, including missiles and bombers. Another country just outside the Middle East borders has a force of 24 Red October-style typhoon class SSBNs, equipped with upgraded SS-SN-20 ballistic missiles, and is busy developing and manufacturing the most deadly binary chemical agents and warheads known to man.

One of the agents called Novichok is reportedly ten times more toxic to humans than any nerve gas. Some of these agents are carried on very fine particles, and are capable of penetrating some filter systems. Add to this the nuclear capability of Israel and all the military hardware America can add to this cocktail. No wonder a world-renowned gifted, sophisticated and highly regarded intelligence expert speaks of the ``arsenal from hell’’. Unless there is serious intervention, there will be blood and fire and pillars of smoke, the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood and there will be no place to hide. The recent events in Moscow will be like a Sunday school picnic.

Daar is geen manier dat daar toegelaat kan word dat die vonk in die kruitvat aangesteek word omdat die VN nie toesien dat sy talle resolusies, soos aangeneem deur die Veiligheidsraad, nie uitgevoer word nie. Die gevierde Afrikaanse digter A D Keet skryf in een van sy gedigte, ``Die lied van die koringboer’’:

O sing my die lied, sing my die lied, wat my hart so raak. Van die onderveldboer en sy koringmied, En die donder wat dreun en kraak.

En dan vertel hy die verhaal van ‘n boer wie se koringmied deur weerlig aan die brand geslaan is, wat woedend by sy voordeur uithardloop met sy voorlaaier in sy hand en hoe hy die bliksem vervloek, en dan die aangrypende vers:

Roekeloos rig hy sy kleine roer Na die sware donderweer Dog die bliksem tref die arme boer En morsdood val hy neer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[There is no way that the spark in the powder keg can be allowed to be ignited because the UN cannot make sure that its many resolutions, as taken by the Security Council, are implemented. The famous Afrikaans poet, A D Keet writes in one of his poems,’‘Die lied van die koringboer’’:

O sing my die lied, sing my die lied, wat my hart so raak. Van die onderveldboer en sy koringmied, En die donder wat dreun en kraak.

And then he relates the story about a farmer whose haystack was hit by lightning, who then angrily stormed out by his front door with his frontloader in his hand and how he curses the lightning, and then there is the poignant verse:

Roekeloos rig hy sy kleine roer Na die sware donderweer Dog die bliksem tref die arme boer En morsdood val hy neer.]

We can speak and act like this farmer as if we are larger than life itself, challenging the forces, or we can support the appeal to the powers that be to act swiftly and decisively in order to avert a worldwide catastrophe. [Applause.]

Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Madam Speaker, Azapo is not convinced that the US intention to invade Iraq is correct, the reason being that Iraq has agreed that the weapons inspection should continue.

If the Americans want to invade Iraq, they should wait until the report of those who are going to inspect has been delivered to the United Nations. The unilateral decision taken by the US and supported by the United Kingdom does, in our view, violate the United Nations declarations on Iraq.

Azapo is concerned about the apparent bullying tactics of the American establishment. We are of the view that the US, despite its military power, should not be allowed to unilaterally invade Iraq.

Iraq is a sovereign state, just like any other state in the world. The people of Iraq need peace. The Gulf region needs peace and stability. The previous war in Iraq brought untold suffering to women, children and the people of Iraq.

Azapo continues to hold the view, firstly, that the only reason the US wants to invade Iraq is that it does not want the democratically elected president of Iraq there. [Interjections.] Secondly, the US wants to dictate to those countries it does not like how they should run their affairs. Azapo cannot allow this to happen. [Interjections.]

Simply put, the US wants to dominate and control the oil industry in the Middle East. [Applause.] Azapo calls on all freedom-loving Americans to oppose this diabolic action of the Americans. [Time expired.]

Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Chairperson, it has been almost 12 years since the first war against Iraq by the UN sanctioned coalition forces. Once again, the world faces another Iraqi crisis and, once again, the clouds of war are gathering over the Gulf.

Countries across the world will have to determine unambiguously where they stand in the looming conflict. In the process, South Africa’s foreign policy will be tested against the realities in the global and international community. In this respect, the ANC Government has a shady reputation. Some of their closest friends include the most despicable people in the world with names such as, among others, Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi coming to mind. [Interjections.] Our silent diplomacy, amid government sanctions, mass starvation, rape and theft in Zimbabwe is another example. [Interjections.]

When developing and implementing their foreign policies, most countries attempt to find a balance between principles on the one hand and national interest on the other. Global principles of peace and security are threatened by Saddam Hussein, and the international principles …

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon member! There is a point of order.

Mr M RAMGOBIN: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order: Does it serve the dignity of this House for members of this Parliament to call heads of state by ugly names, whether they are liked by us or not? I do not think it is correct. I do not think it is dignified, no matter what the DP thinks of what we are saying.

Can we allow the use of derogatory terms in direct reference to heads of state? That is my point of order. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Mr Ramgobin, I would like to look at what the member said, and report back to the House.

I want to appeal to hon members to not infringe or come close to using derogatory language. Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Mr Chairperson, I want to tell the hon member that it is called freedom of expression. [Interjections.]

Global principles of peace and security are threatened by Saddam Hussein, and the international principles of the rule of law, basic human rights and freedoms and democracy are ignored by him. In fact, these are the principles on which Nepad is based. Applying these principles, however, appears to be a stumbling block for the ANC. While the world was expected to rally behind the ANC during the struggle against apartheid, the same ANC has been silent about the abuse of these principles in other countries. South Africa’s national interest has not been satisfied, and the welfare of our people not been improved by the ANC’s ambiguous foreign policy. [Interjections.] I wish to tell the hon Ramgobin that this is hypocrisy.

I would like to look at the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to international peace and security. Iraq has systematically ignored many UN resolutions over the past few years. Since announcing its readiness to permit UN inspections, the Iraqi military have fired at British aircraft, ignoring the no-fly zones on a number of occasions.

The threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein must be viewed against the background of international terrorism and his own track record. Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and will not hesitate to distribute them to terrorists and to use them again himself. In 1988 Hussein’s military murdered 100 000 Kurdish men, destroyed 4 000 villages and used chemical weapons against another 60 villages.

Human rights mean as much to Hussein as they do to the likes of Castro and Mugabe. These are evil men, and in the era of globalisation, the world has a duty to protect its global citizens against such individuals. Should Saddam Hussein renege on his decision to allow inspection for weapons of mass destruction, then the DA and, I hope, our Government, will support any action necessary to disarm Iraq in the interests of global peace and security.

It is now time for the ANC Government to indicate which principles South Africa’s foreign policy is based on. [Applause.]

Dr Z P JORDAN: Mr Chairman, hon members and comrades, I want to begin with a few caveats. Iraq, like every other member state of the United Nations, should and is expected to abide by Security Council resolutions. The second caveat is: Weapons of mass destruction are an abomination, and the world would be a better place without them. And this applies whether such weapons are in the hands of Britain, China, France, India, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan or the United States of America. South Africa is the only country that possessed such weapons and unilaterally destroyed them all. We, on this side of this House, remain, as in the past, totally committed to nuclear disarmament and to the eradication of weapons of mass destruction. The third caveat is: As a nation we are, and I am personally, deeply committed to the struggle to rid the world of international terrorism.

Fourthly, the USA is an open society, with freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of information. It is a law-governed society with a written constitution that holds regular elections which are free and fair, most of the time. In that respect, the political arrangements in the United States are infinitely better than those in a host of other countries, including Iraq.

Last caveat: Criticism of US foreign policy, now or in the future, should neither be read as support for undemocratic regimes, tyranny or dictators, whomever they might be, nor should it be construed as anti-Americanism.

Since 1991, the government of Iraq has been in violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions. As a previous speaker has pointed out, they are, unfortunately, not the only government this applies to. It is a well- known fact that the government of Saddam Hussein, after waging a brutal and mutually destructive war with a neighbour, Iran, invaded another neighbour, Kuwait. For that act of aggression, the international community, quite correctly, punished Iraq and drove its invading army out of Kuwait.

Inside Iraq, the government led by Saddam Hussein has repressed religious and ethnic minorities. It has repressed political opinions it does not like and it persecutes its political opponents. But again, Iraq is not the only country in the Middle East that is intolerant of opposition, that represses political opponents, religious and ethnic minorities. The authoritarianism of the Saddam Hussein government is, regrettably, all too common in that part of the world. Iraq is also not the only country in that region that has produced weapons of mass destruction or attempted to acquire a nuclear capacity.

The great American sociologist Wright C Mills once suggested that US administrations of his day were beholden to or captives of a military- industrial complex. The incumbent Bush administration, in its top echelon, is almost wholly dominated by people linked to the US oil and energy sector. Indeed, there has hardly been a government anywhere in the world that is so closely tied to a single special interest group. Consequently, I was not too surprised to read in this past weekend’s Observer, that is the London newspaper, the following, and I quote:

The leader of the London-based Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq’s massive oil reserves post-Saddam. Disclosure of the meetings in October in Washington, confirmed by an INC spokesman, comes as Lord Browne, the head of BP, has warned that British oil companies have been squeezed out of the post-war Iraq even before the first shot has been fired in any US-led land invasion.

The report continues:

Although Russia and China have existing deals with Iraq, Chalabi has made clear that he would reward the US for removing Saddam with lucrative oil contracts, telling the Washington Post recently: American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.'' Larry Lindsley, President Bush's economic adviser, recently said:A successful war on Iraq would be good for business. When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels per day of production to world supply’’, he said in September. ``The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.’’ Analysts believe that, after five years, Iraq could be pumping 10 million barrels of oil per day. Opec is already starting to implode, with member nations breaking quotas in an attempt to grab market share before oil prices fall.

When the heads of state and government met in Johannesburg in September, they emerged from that summit with an international programme of action for sustainable development centred on the eradication of poverty, coupled with a comprehensive strategy to protect the environment. I fear that what we are witnessing is the unfolding of an alternative strategy for the world community. The hon Charles Kennedy, the leader of the British liberal democrats, not Fidel Castro but that member’s friend, has characterised it as containing ‘a hint of imperialism’. I suspect that this is what former President Mandela was reacting to when he called US policy towards Iraq a threat to world peace.

The Bush administration, it seems, has abandoned the strategies of containment and deterrence of a previous era in preference for one of pre- emptive action. For the first time in decades, the naked display of force is being explicitly advocated. Those among US foreign policy-makers who are still shy about this, speak of a benign American hegemony". We saw a variation on this theme from the pen of Ms Condoleeza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, carried by one of our weekend newspapers: We do not seek to impose democracy on others’’, Ms Rice wrote, which is an extremely commendable sentiment. But, more revealing are the motivations for the courses of action she advocates when she says: We must reject the condescending view that freedom will not grow in the soil of the Middle East or that Muslims somehow do not share in the desire to be free.

Again, a sentiment we could all agree with. She continues:

We seek only to help create conditions in which people can claim a free future for themselves.

Ms Condoleeza Rice’s sentiments have deep roots in the USA’s 20th century past. One scholar has suggested that it echoes the visionary ambition of President Woodrow Wilson. While President Wilson may well have been driven by a genuinely felt concern for the welfare of others, he also displayed a very deep contempt for other cultures and social orders. Witness his anti- Asian racism! It was President Wilson also who coined the epigram: ``What’s good for General Motors is good for the United States’’.

However, there are other traditions from the 20th century United States history which could serve the world better in this age. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt inspired many of the institutions the world community adopted to secure an enduring peace after the Second World War. The challenge today is translating them into contemporary terms, and this implies the promotion of a genuine multilateralism based on recognition and strengthening of the UN and all its agencies; a radical restructuring of the UN and its agencies so that they reflect the changes that have taken place in the world since 1945; the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions to reflect the geo-political changes of the past 57 years, and the eradication of poverty and want, which are the seedbeds of the desperation that find expression in terrorism.

This morning our media report that President Saddam Hussein has appealed to President Mbeki to use his offices as Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement to prevent war. And, because war is bad for little children, their mothers, their fathers and other living things, I think it will be appropriate that this august House should lend support to our President’s efforts. [Applause.]

                  MERCHANDISE MARKS AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Chairperson, hon members of the House, this proposed amendment to the Merchandise Marks Act is a follow-up to certain amendments that were made in 2001. These amendments were prompted by South Africa’s receiving the bid to host the Cricket World Cup and the likelihood that South Africa will in future host many major sporting competitions. For example, next year we will also have the President’s Cup.

In these situations, it is essential that we comply with the best practice in international marketing legislation. One of the major problems that occur in sponsorships of any kind is what is known as ambush marketing, i.e., using the occasion of a sponsored event to market one’s own products during that event. The earlier amendments that we made were designed to deal with that problem, but it was pointed out by many of the sponsors and others that we had not fully dealt with what is now referred to as intrusion marketing, which is similar to ambush marketing, but is based on more direct interventions in the actual event. A common practice is to take many spectators and dress them in the clothing or logo of a particular company and, in that way, attract a great deal of attention.

The portfolio committee, and I thank them for that, proposed that we should be a little bit more restrictive, and ensure that small and medium business were also catered for and that they would not in any way fall within the ambit of this amendment. We have been very pleased to make that amendment. It should be pointed out, as well, that this only applies to events that we have designated, and that means major events, usually of an international or multilateral type that would take place in South Africa.

I believe that the amendments are sensible, practical and would facilitate the sponsorship that is necessary for major sporting events in this country. We urge the House to support the amendments. [Applause.]

Mrs B N SONO: Chairperson, hon members and hon Minister, this Bill seeks to amend the Merchandise Marks Act so that intrusive or ambush marketing becomes illegal. It gives the Minister wide discretionary powers in that respect and applies to events and protected events in that no person may use a trademark in relation to such an event in a manner which is calculated to achieve publicity for that trademark.

The motivation behind these amendments is to give the sponsors of the Cricket World Cup monolithic rights to the marketing of the event, to the exclusion of others. Some of the main sponsors are Pepsi-Cola, Hyundai, SAA and LG. I will put that issue in the proper context as we go on.

This Bill has severe implications for small business. How so? The ministerial proviso to ensure that the organisers have created sufficient opportunities for small business, particularly in the historically disadvantaged areas, was not forthcoming from the United Cricket Board at the portfolio committee briefing. That is crucial to SMMEs, because the notion that small business have to register with the local organisers in order to sell at a designated place goes against the grain of free enterprise and efforts aimed at small business development.

Let us contextualise the implications of the amendments a little bit. There are cricket ovals which are situated in townships and have small businesses in their immediate vicinity with billboards of brands like Coca-Cola. What will happen to small business people who sell Coca-Cola products in the vicinity of the stadium or even if they wear T-shirts with Coca-cola imprints, because that contravention will be criminal?

Ngithi kuNqqongqoshe ake sicabange kahle. [I would like to say to the Minister that we should think properly.]

For example, our people immediately cart their wares to the stadium in order to sell when there are such big events. The UCB could not give us assurances even regarding strategies on how they were going to address that. For instance, the chief sponsor of the cricket oval in Port Elizabeth is Coca-Cola, and what will happen to the billboards? The UCB said that they are going to have to pull them down. That is uncompetitive behaviour.

In Soweto, the shops in the immediate vicinity of the cricket oval sell Coca-Cola products. What is going to happen to those people? How are they going to sell Pepsi-Cola products which are not on offer in the country? Will they get those products at designated outlets? If yes, have those outlets been identified? Against that, however, is the severity of the impact of this anticompetitive behaviour on small business.

Lastly, this Bill was rushed through without adequate consultation and consolidation with the competition authorities, and representation of small business. In conclusion, the DA views this law as draconian. As it stands now, the DA finds it very difficult to support. [Applause.]

Dr R H DAVIES: Chairperson, I hope that as I proceed, I think we will see that the reaction that Mrs Sono has come up with is not warranted and that we have indeed tried to take account of most of the legitimate concerns that were expressed in the committee. We did indeed hear from a number of interested parties. We, in fact, extended the period that was available to accommodate a number of interested parties. This Bill, as the Minister explained, is intended to provide additional protection to sponsors of major sport, entertainment or recreational events against what is known as ``ambush marketing’’.

Ambush marketing'' represents an attempt by a, owner of another brand that is not involved in the sponsorship of the event, to capitalise on that event in an unauthorised way to try to promote that brand. Legislation which we already approved in this Parliament last year prohibits what is known asambush marketing by association’’, that is, an attempt by an unauthorised ambush marketer to present him/herself as a sponsor who contributed to an event to which they had not made any contribution. The Bill before the House today provides for the Minister to extend this protection to sponsors of major events to also cover what is known as ``intrusive ambush marketing’’.

This is an unauthorised attempt by an owner of a brand to promote his/her brand without necessarily trying to present him/herself as a sponsor. It covers a wide range of activities which could include things like flying inflatable balloons over an event publicising alternative brands, dressing up people in an organised way in the logo of a rival brand, putting adverts in the newspapers which are right next to reports on those events, and so on and so forth. The motivation for the Bill is clearly to place South Africa in a stronger competitive position to host these events, while keeping an eye on the interests of the sponsors of the Cricket World Cup to ensure they are protected against ambush marketing.

As the scope of the protection in the Bill is quite wide, and as we discovered in the committee hearings - at which Mrs Sono was present some of the times, but not all of the time - there are quite a number of grey areas and areas of concern. The Bill, in fact, restricts the application of this protection in various ways. For a start, it makes sure that this protection is available only to events which are specifically designated by the Minister, and before designating an event, the Minister has to be satisfied that the event in question is in the public interest. In the committee stage and after hearing from various stakeholders, we were concerned to minimise potential unintended consequences on legitimate activity, particularly by small traders and the media.

We sought to insert an amendment that would make it crystal clear that the public interest would have to entail an obligation by the organisers of events to create opportunities for participation by small businesses, particularly those in previously disadvantaged communities. We were mindful of the fact that we are legislating not just for the Cricket World Cup, but for all future events and for Ministers who may succeed the current incumbent, Minister Erwin. The committee amended the definition of events that may be designated to exclude the original proposal which included conferences, cultural and religious events.

The definition of eligible events is now restricted to events of a sporting, recreational or entertainment nature. We inserted a provision underscoring the Minister’s requirement to engage in proper consultation before designating an event protected, and we reduced the time when the protection ends, from a maximum of two to a maximum of one month after the end of the event. We finally inserted an amendment saying that it would have to be shown that there was an intention to associate with the event in order to constitute an offence.

By passing this Bill we are extending protection of an exclusive intellectual property right. We need to be clear about this. We are doing so because we hope that it will strengthen our ability as a country to bid for the hosting of major events which can bring important benefits to our economy, create employment and create opportunities for small businesses. We trust and we hope that this legislation will be used to protect the sponsors against genuine intrusions by rival brand holders. We trust and we hope that no one will try to use it for frivolous and petty harassment of small traders and those engaged in legitimate attempts to earn an income. Any short-term gains, which anyone who tries to follow the second course may make will, I suspect, be more than off-set in the arena of public opinion on which ultimately brand promotion depends. The ANC will therefore support this Bill. [Applause.]

Mr H J BEKKER: Mr Chairman, many of the aspects that I wanted to deal with have been covered by the hon Davies, and I will therefore summarise basically the comments that I have to make in this speech. South Africa is becoming more and more actively involved with international conferencing, as seen by the World Summit on Sustainable Development and others. Similarly, international events such as world sporting events, such as the Cricket World Cup, the Rugby World Cup and, hopefully, the Soccer World Cup, and even the Olympic Games may come to South Africa one day.

It is of paramount importance that global and local sponsors who are spending billions of rands to sponsor these events are protected against so- called ambush marketers. They, in turn, would enter this lucrative market without contributing anything to the event itself.

In ambush marketing, the marketer has the objective of using the event as a springboard to promote his or her brand or product without incurring the financial and other obligations of a sponsor. Ambush marketing by intrusion may include the placing of adverts for products on the outskirts of a stadium at which the sponsored event is taking place, running advertisements making a reference to a sponsored sporting event without suggesting that the advertiser is a sponsor of the event, or bringing a product or its promotion to the attention of people interested in a sponsored event, but without suggesting or implying any form of sponsorship of that sponsored event.

As was said, we see quite frequently the flying over of small planes tailing banners, that type of thing, without contributing anything to that particular event. The Trade Practices Act was amended last year to protect authorised sponsors against so-called association or associated insignia of distributors. However, this amendment did only half a job of protecting events and event organisers against ambush marketing, since events currently remain unprotected in respect of ambush marketing by intrusion.

The Bill before us now seeks to rectify this situation. The IFP is strongly in favour of the protection of intellectual property rights and the conventions thereto. The amendments to the Merchandise Marks Amendment Bill of 2002 are logical and it makes sense.

The IFP will therefore support this Bill.

Dr R T RHODA: Chairperson, ambush marketing is a very real problem for large and small sponsors. Some years ago, in my former life, I personally was the victim of ambush marketing. As a manufacturer of a national brand of products many years ago, I sponsored a national beauty pageant, and an opposition company ambushed the pageant under the pretence that they had also contributed financially towards the event, and this was very unfortunate. [Interjections.] The queen got her crown in the end.

The Merchandise Amendment Bill provides for protection, particularly of organisers of sporting events, from intrusive ambush marketing. The main object of the Bill is to authorise the Minister of Trade and Industry to protect the organisers of such events, for example, major sporting events, from what has internationally become known as ambush marketing.

This may include ambush marketing by deliberately placing the advertisement billboards for a product on the outskirts of a stadium at which the sponsored event might take place, and thereby gaining free exposure and advertising; running advertisements making reference to a sponsored sporting event without suggesting that the advertiser is a sponsor of the event, or bringing a product or its promotion to the attention of people interested in the sponsored event without suggesting or implying in any form sponsorship of the sponsored event.

In this way, the ambush marketer creates a false impression that he or she is an authorised sponsor or contributor associated with the event. Because we need commercial investment to sponsor big events, these sponsors need to be protected from ambush marketing by companies who have not invested in the event.

The sponsorship of events such as the Olympic Games, the Rugby World Cup, the Soccer World Cup and the forthcoming Cricket World Cup in South Africa, is estimated to run into billions of rands.

It is therefore not unreasonable to expect sponsors who have spent so much money on these special events to reap the full and exclusive benefit of advertising their brands. An ambush marketer is a marketer who has the objective of using the event, as has been said before, as a springboard to promote his or her brand or product without incurring the financial and other obligations of the sponsor.

Ambush marketing by intrusion has happened in several major events in the past. We can mention, for example, the Comrades Marathon where I believe Reebok was the main sponsor. What happened was that they spent a lot of money on this event, but then Nike gave shoes to the runners. This is an example of ambush marketing. The New NP supports the amendment.

Mr C T FROLICK: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, the hosting of sporting events of international importance, such as the Rugby World Cup, the Soccer World Cup and the Olympic Games have indeed coincided with a significant increase in sponsorship for these events. Sponsorship is estimated to run into millions and, in certain instances, billions of rands. This amending Bill therefore seeks to address the issue of intellectual property protection by closing the perceived gap in existing legislation in respect of ambush marketing by ways of intrusion.

Indeed, as the chairperson of the committee has mentioned, certain concerns were raised by committee members, and by submissions during the committee stage. These related to the definition of an event and also the impact that the designation of such an event would have on small businesses and vendors from previously disadvantaged communities. To a certain extent these issues have been adequately addressed. However, the application of this amendment and its impact will only be experienced during the hosting of the Cricket World Cup in South Africa in 2003.

As matters currently stand, restrictions will be enforced by event organisers on the public in and around the stadiums. This ranges from prohibitions placed on the advertising of non-authorised goods and services to the wearing of certain types of clothing. During the 1995 Cricket World Cup on the subcontinent, incidents of ambush marketing were indeed rife. The hosts of such events and the Government have an obligation and duty to protect the investment of the sponsor.

However, this must be aligned with the promotion of local small businesses and the daily activities of ordinary citizens. If any unintended consequences emanate from the practical implementation of this amendment, immediate efforts must be made to address these shortcomings. However, the Cricket World Cup Committee in South Africa also has the responsibility to ensure that they address these shortcomings, and do not apply a rigid approach with its implementation, but rather accommodate the various stakeholders.

Adv Z L MADASA: Chairperson, at face value the Bill seems to be too protective, monopolistic and anti-competitive. However, if one considers the need to protect organisers of events, who have expended sometimes large resources, from opportunistic advertising invaders, then this Bill is just and fair.

The Bill furthermore entrenches the principle of paying for the benefit one derives. It could be argued that the Bill will exclude small players in the marketing industry. Section 15(a) and (b) give the Minister powers to ensure that organisers of events make room for small businesses, in particular those from previously disadvantaged communities.

Therefore, as the ACDP, we are satisfied with what the Bill intends to achieve and we accordingly support it.

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, having debated this last year, the provisions relating to ambush marketing and exclusive rights are still fresh in my mind.

The MF agrees by all means that there are events that call for a limiting of rights in protecting the dignity, honour and status of an event. For instance, the preservation of the use of a country’s national flag should be done very strictly owing to the earned respect and honour of each nation.

However, we live in a society where poverty and unemployment is high and where people battle to make ends meet. Often new markets and opportunities such as these auspicious events are used and seen as a means of bringing in some cash.

The MF, however, maintains that in circumstances such as these forthcoming games, the organisers should maintain exclusivity, and all those not associated with such organisation should be able to lodge some type of appeal in order to form part of the event. The maintenance of such preservation is not solely to uphold the exclusivity and status of the event.

The MF supports the Merchandise Marks Amendment Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, the hon Donald Lee has asked me to ask whether the definition of ``ambush marketing by intrusion’’ should be extended to members of Parliament showing the logo of their party at the back of motion papers during motion time.

Borgskappe van groot sportgeleenthede beloop miljarde rande. Die borg is daarop geregtig om die myle te kry waarvoor hy betaal. Hy kan nie bekostig dat enige ander daarop parasiteer nie.

Die AEB glo dat dit in die belang van sport en van volhoubare borgskappe is dat die borg se belegging beskerm moet word. Die AEB verwelkom in hierdie geval die diskresie van die Minister. ‘n ‘‘One-size-fits-all’‘-regulasie sou baie maklik kleiner, informele entrepreneurs sionder meer doodgedruk het.

Die AEB doen ‘n beroep op die Minister om hierdie wet met groot omsigtigheid toe te pas om enersyds die borge te beskerm, maar andersyds nie die veelkleurige mosaïek van die ware feeskarakter van groot geleenthede te demp nie.

Die AEB steun hierdie wetsontwerp. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Sponsorships of large sporting events amount to billions of rands. The sponsor is entitled to get what he pays for. He cannot afford for anyone else to parasitise on that.

The AEB believes that it is in the interests of sport and of sustainable sponsorships that the sponsor’s investment be protected. In this case the AEB welcomes the discretion of the Minister. A ``one size fits all’’ regulation could easily have resulted in the unqualified squashing of smaller, informal entrepreneurs. The AEB appeals to the Minister to implement this Act with great circumspection to protect the sponsors on the one hand, but on the other not to dampen the multicoloured mosaic of the true festival character of large events.

The AEB supports this Bill.]

Mr S M RASMENI: Chairperson, first of all, I want to deal with the issues raised by the hon Sono. It seems to me that the hon Sono did not pay adequate attention to what was happening during the debates in the committee, because the issues that she raised are issues that were dealt with by the committee, especially those relating to small businesses, and amendments were effected in that regard. Perhaps she is not presenting her own view. She might have taken some instruction from someone else, maybe the DP, so that she could, once again, raise those concerns here. [Interjections.]

The main objective of this Bill is to authorise the Minister of Trade and Industry to protect certain events, for example, major sporting events, from what is internationally known as ambush marketing, in particular ``ambush marketing’’ by way of intrusion.

In ambush marketing, the marketer has the objective of using the event as a springboard to promote his or her brand or product without incurring the financial and other obligations of a sponsor. Ambush marketing by intrusion may include, firstly, placing an advertisement for a product on the outskirts of a stadium at which a sponsored event is taking place, secondly, running advertisements making reference to a sponsored sporting event without suggesting that the advertiser is a sponsor of the event and, thirdly, bringing a product or its promotion to the attention of the people interested in a sponsored event, but without suggesting or implying any form of sponsorship of the sponsored event.

The desirability of this protection in this piece of legislation is to protect the brand name of the event and to encourage international sponsorship, especially for world events that are staged in our country, like the Cricket World Cup 2003. This in turn will attract international investment and thereby increase opportunities for infrastructure and economic development. The ANC welcomes and supports this Bill mainly because it offers great potential for the socioeconomic development of our people and South Africa as a whole.

The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry decided to introduce an amendment that aims to balance the need for protected events with those of national objectives, especially as it relates to the interests of small businesses. Therefore, the intention of clause 2(2) is aimed at the proprietors of trademarks and not the small businessperson.

I will therefore deal with this specific amendment, clause 2(1)(b), which states that:

The Minister may not designate an event as a protected event unless the staging of the event is in the public interest and the Minister is satisfied that the organisers have created sufficient opportunities for small businesses and in particular those of the previously disadvantaged communities.

That is the amendment that the committee has made, I wish to tell the hon Sono.

We in the ANC move this amendment with the understanding that many people in the informal sector are unemployed and that unemployment has affected many young people, women and rural people most acutely. This amending Bill will serve as a measure that government at all levels will embark on a programme combining short-term measures aimed at providing a degree of immediate relief with long-term interventions aimed at sustainable job creation and alternative income opportunities.

This is in line with Chapter l, section 3(2) of the Constitution, namely that:

(a) all citizens are equally entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits of citizenship; and (b) equally subject to the duties and responsibilities of citizenship …

[Applause.]

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairperson, the members of the committee of all parties, apart from the first speaker, have very carefully explained this Act, how it works and what it contains. I think it is disappointing that such a misunderstanding can occur on the part of one party as to what the Act is trying to do and what it will achieve.

I think we need to bear in mind some fairly common-sensical and obvious propositions that at any major event there will be a host of different products sold by small and big businesses and many other operators. We must understand the distinction between those that are selling at an event and those that are advertising and, more particularly, those that attempt the forms of ambush marketing that were dealt with by this amendment.

The department felt that the small businesses that will be selling at any event will be protected, but we welcome the portfolio committee’s vigilance on this matter and their further protection of small and medium enterprises.

It is quite clear that the kind of propositions put forward by the hon Sono are not, in any way, realistic or opportune in relation to this Act, and I think they were merely designed to create confusion.

It is very clear that if we want to hold major international events, as is obviously envisaged by this amendment, we will need very large sponsorship, and we have to take into account the regulations and rules governing the protection of that sponsorship’s rights.

I believe we have done so in this amendment, both in a manner that will satisfy sponsors who very often are global sponsors and not only South African, and in a manner that ensures that no undue abuse can take place of the rights of sponsorship to prevent ordinary persons and businesses from undertaking legitimate trade within any major event.

I therefore thank the House for supporting it in the main, and I believe that this is a good step in ensuring that South Africa will, no doubt, become a very important venue for international sporting and recreational activities in the years to come. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time (Democratic Party dissenting).

                       PATENTS AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairperson, this Bill has attracted a degree of attention, but I think it is important for me to spell out some very basic propositions around this, so that we do not have any confusion or undue and unnecessary speculation as to what it is we are trying to achieve here.

As is apparent to this House, in South Africa, since 1994, we have been amending many pieces of legislation that deal with either trademarks or intellectual property. I should point out that these are not the same thing. Intellectual property is something that can be attributed to a patent, and a patent is governed by very strict criteria as to what can be registered as a patent and what cannot.

A trademark is merely a logo or a brand that a private company or a public company seeks to protect in one or other way. As the hon Rajbally pointed out, the national flag and other instruments of state are covered by the trademark legislation. They are not intellectual property.

With regard to intellectual property, we have stated on record, time and time again, and I will state it again now very clearly, that this Government is a strong supporter of a regime that protects intellectual property. We also believe that new aspects of intellectual property, such as traditional knowledge and medicines, need to come within this framework and within this scheme.

So, any idea that this Government is, in some way through its legislation, attempting to attack the basic fundamentals of patent rights and intellectual property is mischievous in the extreme.

The amendments that we have made, in our view, are compliant with the trade and intellectual property system, the so-called TRIPS Agreement, and many of the amendments that we have made over the past few years are to bring our law within the framework of that action.

As we have done in certain cases, we believe that national interests must override intellectual property, and that was the logic and the basis behind the amendments made in the arena of medicines. There, too, South Africa is of the view that we fell full square within the TRIPS Agreement, and I think this was vindicated in the declaration that was agreed upon at the Doha negotiations.

So, the amendments that we are seeking to make here are, in the main, relatively technical amendments, designed to remove any lack of clarity. South Africa is a member of the world’s Intellectual Property Organisation and of many patent protection agreements, and this means that patents that are lodged in South Africa can also then be lodged elsewhere in the world system. This is one of the areas of potential confusion that the amendments seek to clarify.

The major amendment of substance is, I think, very appropriate for South Africa at this time. Essentially this amendment can be said to be the following: Quite clearly, as any patent comes near the end of its life, it is perfectly legitimate, reasonable and necessary that other producers, other researchers, other companies and other organisations should be entitled to begin research dealing with that particular patented product.

That is what the amendment does. It says that for non-commercial purposes and governed by fairly clearly defined and strict access to information conditions, one can begin to do research on a patented product.

In this regard, obviously, generics are important. A generic is a product that is not patented by any particular company, either because there is no unique science or technology that a company can define by its action or because the patents of that product have expired and this now enters the general domain of global intellectual property.

So, it is manifestly clear that towards the end of a patent of major pharmaceutical products, it should be open and possible for companies to begin doing research on what the generic variant would be. In that case, it should also be possible to do research on pharmaceutical products that may be associated with or linked to the patented product. Our previous law did not allow this.

So, effectively, what happened was that for the full 20-year patented period, no action could be taken. This is the so-called Roche-Bolar provision, which says that towards the end of a patented period, research should be allowed under regulated conditions, and that is what this amendment has done for South Africa.

We are beginning, as members know, to have the capacity to undertake certain research and certain pharmaceutical production, and I think, as this industry begins to expand, this will become an area that we will need.

There are many ways in which this Roche-Bolar provision has been implemented by countries across the world, and I know that the pharmaceutical industry made submissions to the committee that they needed some kind of additional period of protection for the patents. We decided - and I am pleased that the committee supported us on that - that that is not needed at this time.

We will, of course, in certain circumstances, have to review that matter. However, our view is that in the South African situation as it stands now, as is being done in other countries, the current amendment provides not only protection for the patent holders, but provides the prospect for our own economy, our own society and our research institutions doing the necessary research to ensure that we provide affordable, accessible and effective pharmaceutical products for our people.

I should stress also - and this is an important point - that this patenting amendment does not only deal with pharmaceutical products, but with all other products. So, the tendency to think that patents only relate to pharmaceutical products is not correct. It relates to all sorts of products, but because the pharmaceutical industry is the best organised, we tend to think that that is the only product we are talking about.

That is another reason why we did not want to give extensions or make any other modification to the amendment. There are many patents in our world, and this Act applies to all patents, not just pharmaceutical ones.

I would urge the House to support this. I think it is an appropriate and necessary amendment, as South Africa’s economy and capacity to change develops. [Applause.]

Mrs B N SONO: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister, the DA will always put the interests of the poor and sick first. [Interjections.] It was in terms of this standard that the DA supported the provision in the SAMTRA Bill obliging doctors to offer generic drugs, rather than their branded equivalents, when they are available. Because this Bill goes some way towards making cheaper generic versions of life-saving drugs available more quickly, the DA will give its support to this Bill too.

The DA recognises the importance of investment in research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. With these investments, many killer diseases have become easily curable and many chronic diseases, including Aids, have become more bearable. However, while the pharmaceutical industry needs to be rewarded for its effort, the reward must not be so great that society ceases to benefit. A balance between the competing needs is required.

The DA believes that the 20-year patent protection period is adequate time in which to recoup expenditure and make a profit. This Bill will simply allow generic manufacturers to produce immediately on expiry of the patent rather than having to devote further time to developing a saleable product.

The beneficiaries will be the millions of patients in South Africa who cannot afford brand name products and who will now be able to access generics more quickly.

However, the DA believes that the Government’s effort to make affordable drugs available to those who are both poor and sick do not go nearly far enough.

Last year, the DA submitted a private members Bill to Parliament to amend provisions in the Patents Act regarding the circumstances under which patents can be by-passed. The Bill would allow Government to declare a national emergency on Aids and thereby authorise the manufacture of generic equivalents to antiretroviral drugs. South Africa has a number of generic drug manufacturers who would be able to supply the drugs in a matter of weeks.

Although the Bill was submitted a year ago, it still has to see the light of day in this House. Antiretroviral drugs are used as standard treatment in Europe and America. Underdeveloped countries like Brazil, which is manufacturing its own generic drugs, are using them with increasing success to manage their epidemics. They are widely used in the private health sector in South Africa and are readily available to government members through the Parmed Medical Aid Scheme.

Moreover, most antiretroviral drugs are new developments and will not be affected by the Bill under discussion for a further 10 or 15 years. In the meantime, 250 000 people per year are dying from Aids, but this Government is still refusing to take the action needed to stem the deaths. It has yet to produce a policy on access to Aids drugs in the public sector, even though in some hospitals more than 80% of patients are HIV-positive, and even those state hospitals spend R4 billion a year on treating opportunistic infections.

The impression of lethargy and unwillingness to directly confront the disease is unavoidable. This Bill is a necessary addition to a stockpile of weapons needed to fight the disease, but we must not be lulled into thinking that it is enough. It is not enough, I wish to tell the Minister, because even in the presentation at the portfolio committee by the generic drug industry, when we questioned them, they seemed to have a problem with research capacity. So, that is where we feel that the Government can make it even more accessible, and intervene positively. The DA supports the Bill. Dr R H DAVIES: Chairperson, the fourth World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting, which was held in Doha in November 2001, adopted a special declaration on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and public health. One of the most important sections of their declaration reads, and I quote:

We agree that the TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health. Accordingly, while reiterating our commitment to the TRIPS Agreement, we affirm that the Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO members’ right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.

The Doha declaration on TRIPS and public health was hard-won. It was a product of intense struggle and represented an important victory, particularly for developing countries that face major health challenges.

The stance which was taken by our own Government and people in the case that was brought against the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act was an important milestone in the ongoing and still contested struggle to establish the fundamental principle that the intellectual property rights of patent holders have to operate in a context within which the health needs of our people are prioritised.

The Bill before us this afternoon is about aligning our domestic intellectual property legislation to give effect to one of the hard-won rights that is available in terms of the TRIPS, and one which could have an effect of making available to the South African public cheaper generic medicines at an earlier period than is currently the case.

Article 30 of the Trips allows countries to legislate limited exceptions to the exclusive rights of patent holders. One such exception, which the Minister indicated that a number of countries have provided for, is the so- called Roche-Bolar early working principle in terms of which generic manufacturers are able to have access to a patented product and information about its manufacture to allow them to begin research and preparatory work to apply for registration of a generic product before the expiry of the patent. The purpose of this, of course, is to ensure that the generic products are available on the market as soon as the 20-year paper period expires. Without such provision, there is often a de facto extension of the patent period by as much as five or six years, this being the time it can take to do the preparatory work needed ahead of the launching on the market of generic drugs.

Section 69(a) of the Bill before us introduces just such a principle of an early working of a patent into our law, and this is the main provision of the Bill before us today, which otherwise makes only minor and uncontroversial changes to the Patents Act.

In the public hearings on this Bill in the committee we, in fact, heard no objection to the principle of introducing the idea of an early working of a patent into our law. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, which represents producers and distributors of patented medicines in South Africa, also indicated its agreement in principle with such a provision. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, however, asked us to insert what they called a `balancing provision’ for the so-called patent term restoration, which will be an extension of the patent period, apparently to compensate the patent holders for any administrative delays in registering medicines in terms of the Medicines Control Council procedures. This was strongly opposed by the National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, representing the locally based industry, on the grounds that this would allow the extension of the patent period beyond the 20 years, which should be sufficient to allow innovative companies to recoup the costs of their investments.

The National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers also pointed out that, without a provision for early working, South African generic medicines producers would be placed at a disadvantage in relation to competition from producers in foreign jurisdictions where such provisions exist. At the moment, we rely very heavily on imports for generics and this Bill will therefore encourage the local production of generic medicines.

When we unpacked the issue of administrative delays in registering drugs and the principle of patent term restoration, it became clear to us that there were a number of very complex and highly contested issues involved. Firstly, there was no agreement and certainly no convincing evidence that there are inordinate delays in registering drugs with the Medicines Control Council. The MCC had experienced backlogs, but there were signs that these were being overcome.

Secondly, there are variations in the way in which the patent term restoration issues are dealt with in those jurisdictions that do provide for this. In Australia, for example, it only comes into force if there is a delay of five years or more. We were also told that the principle was being reconsidered in the United States, which is the country of origin of that principle.

At the end of the day, the committee was faced with having to take a decision about priority. The majority of us decided that the clear priority in our country was, firstly, to ensure that we take whatever steps we can to ensure that our people are provided with the best access we can ensure to affordable medicine.

The second priority is to support local producers. The Roche-Bolar early working principle embodied in this legislation can make a contribution to both, and therefore deserves to be supported. This does not mean that we in the committee were indifferent to issues of bureaucratic inefficiency. We urged, in the committee, that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Medicines Control Council engage with stakeholders to ensure that procedures for registration of patents and medicines were as efficient as possible. Improving the service is a clear objective of the Companies and Intellectual Property Office. If, at a later stage, it is necessary to have further considerations on this point, then this matter could be entertained later on.

It has been a privilege to have been able to play a modest role in facilitating the passing of a Bill which I am certain can make a contribution to confronting the serious health challenges facing us.

The ANC commends this Bill to the House. [Applause.]

Mr H J BEKKER: Chairman, at the outset, let me applaud the Minister for his unequivocal support of intellectual property rights, because it is important for South Africa that we spell this out to the international world. The IFP subscribes unconditionally to the protection of intellectual property rights. We believe protection of intellectual property rights would guarantee that international investors’ skills and know-how would not be poached by people or organisations which do not do any research or development by themselves.

International investors must feel safe and comfortable in South Africa. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, in principle, supported the Bill, and even the greater access that is now going to be given to the market for the manufacturers of generic medicines. During the hearings, it appeared that the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association would be prepared to negotiate with the state very much in respect to the objects of the Bill. I am convinced that with more effort we could have had a unanimous and general acceptance of the legislation.

The only basic aspect which was a quandary at the end was this patent restoration period, and I think that there was room for this particular aspect. Unfortunately, the time factor was against us. With regard to patent rights on medicine, two portfolio committees had to deal with this aspect, complicating matters further. Generic medicines are of vital importance in the struggle to obtain cheaper medicines.

The 20-year protection period for patented medicines is universally accepted. In future, the manufacturers and patent holders will still have protection for 20 years. However, the generic manufacturers may now develop and copy the patented medicine, and prepare the application for registration during the period of this 20-year protection. They only may not go on to the market and sell their products during that time.

On the day of expiry of the 20-year term, the generic manufacturer may lodge its application for registration. The IFP is supportive of the legislation, but believes that it would have been possible to have brought everybody on board with minor amendments. The IFP will therefore urge the state and the Department of Trade and Industry to reflect on the legislation and, once it has been enacted, to bring this legislation back for further consideration. In this regard, I also want to compliment the hon Davies who also mooted the possibility that this could probably be done.

The IFP will, nevertheless, with these provisos, support and vote for the Patents Amendment Bill. We support it.

Dr R T RHODA: Chairperson, in a nutshell, the Patents Amendment Bill brings South African legislation in line with provisions of the Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Law, TRIPS, in permitting research by persons other than a patent holder, particularly in relation to the production of generic pharmaceutical products.

Having personally worked in the pharmaceutical research for many years, I can assure members that it takes an enormous amount of money, time, knowledge, patience, innovation and risk to produce a successfully marketed new and useful drug. Patent protection is a necessary and an effective incentive for research and development of needed products. Medicines are essential to the wellbeing of our nation, and not just simply another commodity.

Patents must therefore be managed in an impartial way to benefit the patent holder and the public at large. It is a business venture and, naturally, capital must be recouped, and there must be rewards. Therefore, in doing what must be done, we must be careful not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Then again, research companies will also agree that scientists who produce the results for them do not fall from the sky. They come from our universities.

President Bush says of the big brand drug companies, and I quote;

You deserve the rewards of your research and development, but you do not have the right to keep generic drugs off the market for frivolous reasons.

Yes, doctors can diagnose diseases, but without the availability of effective pharmaceuticals, not much can be done to relieve and cure patients.

The patent allows an intervention, and prevents others from making, selling or using an invention for approximately 20 years. The pharmacy prices are affordable only to the affluent, unfortunately. Poor people who generally have more health problems than the affluent, are immediately excluded, as we have seen with AZT and other new formulations.

Sadly, every day poor people in South Africa actually die from curable diseases, mainly because they cannot afford the exorbitant prices charged by big brand innovative drug companies for the medicines. In 1999 a survey was done. It revealed that 66% of respondents cited cost as the main reason for not seeking health care when sick. Thus public needs justify policies and laws that would enable our Government to provide access to cheaper medicines.

It is for this reason that we must limit the unintended extension of a patent, because millions of dollars are made by the innovative companies every day that the generic is kept from entering the market. I do not have anything further to say, other than to say that the New NP supports this Bill wholeheartedly.[Applause.]

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson, as we meet today to debate the Patents Amendment Bill, it is encouraging to note that this Bill makes provision for the early entry of generic medicines in South Africa. This is consistent with what happens in other countries that have managed to establish and roll out a strong generic medicines policy.

According to the published data, the sources of active ingredients that perform bioequivalent studies, quality assurance and the compilation of a dossier for drug registration purposes takes two to three years, and manufacturing processes add another three to six months. This effectively means that a period of three to four years is needed for a generic medicine to be available. This amending Bill will enable all scientific and regulatory requirements for the registration of generic medicines to be made during the period of a patent. This will then allow for the immediate availability of a generic medicine when the patent of the branded name expires.

This is an important step that will improve access to generic medicines. We therefore support this Bill fully as this provision will minimise unnecessary delays that effectively extend patent rights from three to four years. All this is consistent with our international trade agreements at the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health. Integral to this agreement is the affirmation that the TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health.

In principle, we support the view that there should be appropriate revenue and security for research and development for new medicines and the value attached to their improvement in health. Our concerns, which are addressed by this amending Bill and the Medicines Act as amended recently in this House, are the high prices of brand name medicines and the delayed entry of cheaper generic medicines.

The introduction of approximately five to ten generic equivalents of a specific medicine has a significant impact on price, and it should be noted that price is an important determinant of access to essential medicines. Where there are in excess of ten generic medicines in a country, prices fall by more than 50%, or further entrants may even reduce the price up to 75%. The dramatic rise in the sale of generic medicines has been reported in the United States of America, as having purchases close to $8-$10 billion in 1994.

The change in legislation to allow for generic medicine entry has contributed to this. It has further been reported that when more generic medicine producers enter the market, the prices fall significantly. It has been estimated that 80% of the profits of generic manufacturers are obtained within 18 months of the appearance of a generic alternative. The amending of the Patent Act will promote the early introduction of generic medicine into the market. This is a stepping stone to the promotion of local production of generic medicines. This Bill is additional to provisions in the Medicines Amendment Bill, which is aimed at introducing measures to make medicines affordable and accessible.

This is a process that builds momentum to fundamental change in South Africa that will encourage competition in the sale of medicines. We embrace these changes that we consider to be significant in the process of strengthening the relationship between trade and health. From a public health perspective, I see this as an important step and development that will promote the availability of essential medicines at affordable prices without unnecessary delays. I want to assure the South African public that this Government is doing everything possible to ensure that everyone has access to affordable medicines.

The African National Congress goes further to ensure that every person in South Africa has affordable access to health care services and that access to services cannot be determined by ability to pay. This resolve by the African National Congress is built on the principle of universal access to basic services and, in particular, basic health care services.

If one looks carefully, one would notice that the record of the ANC speaks for itself in this regard. The principles enshrined in the Freedom Charter, the African National Congress Health Plan for South Africa and the national drug policy of the Department of Health.

Let me clear the myth that cheap drugs equal poor quality. This is totally untrue and a gospel doom that is preached by those who benefit from the current system. We have established a reputable Medicines Control Council whose function it is to ensure that all medicines that enter this country are of good quality.

Let me assure the public of South Africa that they should not be concerned that this legislation will open the floodgates for poor quality medicines. This is not true. The fact is that we are co-operating with the SA Police Service to monitor counterfeit medicines on an ongoing basis. We are also doing everything possible to put an immense effort into strengthening the Medicines Control Council to build its technical and administrative capacity to process the registration of medicines as quickly as possible without sacrificing quality.

Finally, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Industry, and the portfolio committee for this amending Bill. [Applause.]

Mr C T FROLICK: Deputy Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, the objective of the Patents Amendment Bill is to effect substantive procedural and technical adjustments to update the Patents Act of 1978.

Amendments to section 45(a) of the Act are required to create a conducive and enabling environment for researchers and innovators to work on a patent while it is still in force. The proposed amendments will be of application especially in the fields of health care and medicines.

In comparing the prevailing situation in South Africa with other countries, it is indeed worthwhile to note that the United States spends as much as 50% of its total pharmaceutical expenditure on generics. However, in South Africa only 20% is spent on generics. One of the reasons for this is mainly the delay in researchers and innovators gaining access to the patent upon its pending expiry.

While patent protection is a necessity and due incentive for the research and development of essential products, it must be managed in ways which are beneficial to both the patent holder and the general public.

This amendment will lead to essential drugs being made more affordable to the poor, and it also has the potential to stimulate the economy and drastically undercut public spending on medicines. The UDM supports the Bill.

Adv Z L MADASA: Mr Chairman, the Bill seeks to allow manufacturers of generic products to develop and register their products before the expiry of a patent, though not to sell it commercially.

The aim is to accelerate the entry of cheaper generic substitutes into the market. As they stand at the moment, makers of generic drugs can develop their products only after the expiry of a patent, which in effect extends the length of the patent from 20 years to about 25 or 30 years.

This Bill will encourage local production of generics. The amending Bill is a welcome intervention by the Government in order to help the country to deal with the HIV/Aids pandemic more comprehensively. It is another way of ensuring that HIV/Aids treatment is made cheaper and affordable. The Bill will generally ensure greater access to medicines and cheaper treatment of diseases.

The Pharmaceutical Association is on record as not being against the amendment. The issues of low investor confidence raised by the Pharmaceutical Association and the possibility of this Bill exacerbating the situation are baseless and seem to be a decoy to avoid the real debate. The basic fundamentals of protection of intellectual property are not threatened in any way by this Bill in our view.

Therefore, the ACDP will support the Bill.

Mrs S F BALOYI: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, last week the Medicines and Related Substance Amendment Bill was debated, amongst other Bills. It made provision for generic substitution to make medicines accessible and affordable at a cheaper price so that the majority of our poor people have excess to these essential medicines. Generic medicines are viewed by some as being inferior in quality. This is not so, as generics are of equivalent quality, safety and efficacy as the more expensive medicines, and the ANC welcomes and encourages its availability and utilisation on the market.

Today another key transformatory Bill, the Patents Amendment Bill, is being debated. This Bill is complementary to the Medicines Amendment Bill. This Bill represents a major step forward in ensuring more affordable and accessible medicines at a cheaper price for all our people. The Bill allows for the early working of a patent before the patent expires. This allows for the immediate entry of generics after the expiry of a patent.

The ANC welcomes this amendment as it is essential for meeting the health needs of all the citizens of South Africa, and in line with the Government’s policy of increasing the availability and affordability of generics. The percentage of locally produced generics is very low compared to other countries. Many advanced countries have such provisions, especially developed countries. South Africa is not unique in seeking this amendment to patent law. Our responsibility and accountability is to our people and not to those who profit from the pain and suffering of the poor and disadvantaged masses of our people, who cannot afford the most expensive medicines and drugs.

Expensive brand name medicine expenditure is 80%. For generics it is 20%. In the USA it is currently about 50%. Why then should we in South Africa, with a worse disease prevalence, not be able to manufacture cheap, safe and quality generics for the sake of many of our people who die from curable diseases because they cannot afford expensive medicines currently on the South African market?

The ANC regards the manufacturing of generics as urgent and it is giving priority to the manufacturing and distribution of generics in respect of diseases such as malaria, diabetes, HIV Aids and many preventable and curable diseases that are ravaging our people’s health, our economy and our country. The ANC Government, with this amendment, is taking the health, social and economic needs of its people and country into account, and therefore legislating accordingly.

This amendment will keep at bay the flooding of our market with new generic products by manufacturing companies outside South Africa, as local manufacturers will now have the same advantage to produce cheap, affordable generics, thus reducing the price of medicines. Every day that a generic is kept from entering the market, millions of dollars are made by big innovator multinational pharmaceutical companies in profit. The ANC Government’s commitment and priority is to improve the health and quality of life of every citizen of our country. Therefore, early working will provide substantial benefits to our people, the industry and the economy of our country.

It is important to produce generics locally to stimulate competition, promote access and reduce the cost of medicines for the benefit of all. The 2002 Kayser survey showed that rural households spend up to 60% of their monthly income on medicines and health care. The majority of our poor people are getting poorer by the day because most of their earnings are spent on medicines. The ANC will not be deterred in any way from fulfilling its mandate to care for its people.

Concerns have been raised mainly by those whose who are not happy about the workings of the MCC about patent term restoration and the efficiency of the Medicines Control Council. The ANC Government inherited a struggling council and had to go through a process of transformation and restructuring, capacity building and dealing with huge backlogs. This took some time, as one can appreciate that the process had to be properly addressed.

Since 1998, this Government, through the transformation of the Medicine Control Council, has allocated more resources, and an expert committee has been established and legislation passed to harmonise the evaluation and registration process so that medicines can be registered efficiently and swiftly. Therefore, the question of the so-called delays is being effectively addressed. The ANC Government’s political will and commitment to the provision of cheap, accessible and affordable medicine, supported by community will and active participation in their own health, will go a long way to strengthening efforts to fight the scourge of disease and poverty.

I think we all can support this Bill with a clear conscience because health is not a commodity to be traded for profit, and should not be seen to be converted into a lucrative trade for gain or profit at the expense of the poor.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister, the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry and his committee for supporting this amending Bill. The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]

Ms S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the clarity that this Bill now serves to bring about is much needed and brings it quite in line with the actual intention and aim of the first drafting of this Bill. Patent laws are very important. It refers to an agreed exchange of right that has to be honoured, like terms of binding contracts. Rights are to be preserved and upheld. It is what makes such an impact. It is our duty as Government to ensure that such terms are upheld and fulfilled. It is our duty as Government to ensure the protection and preservation of such a contract and, most importantly, it is our duty as Government to oversee that the proper mechanics and lawful procedures are adhered to.

Corruption is sadly by no means absent from South African society and Government. It is a weakness that calls for an earnest oversight of events in all spheres.

Secondly, transparency has to be maintained and the people have the right to access all information, and so forth, as a democratic right inherited by the citizenship. It is therefore very important that truth that is shown to the community contains hard efforts of the Government to control and manage the sector well. Confidence in the South African Parliament has to be maintained. Honouring and preserving patent laws is one way of showing how trustworthy and dedicated our system is. The MF supports the Bill.

Mr N M DUMA: Chairperson, hon members, we in the ANC rise to support Government in its work for modification in the trade-related aspects of international property in order to address issues of global public goods, affordable medicines and sharing of benefits of bio-diversity development.

We welcome and support these amendments, particularly as they relate to public health care and the ability of the state to ensure that members of the public have access to affordable and cheaper medicines. Although certain aspects of the Act, as currently applied, do not sufficiently create conditions to meet the above objectives, we in the ANC are satisfied that this piece of legislation will ensure improved health care in a positive and developmental manner.

Section 45(a) of the Patents Act as it stands, overly protects the patentee or holder of the patent. This is so because no person has a right to conduct any early work on a patent before it expires after 20 years. This practice of excluding even researchers and innovators has an adverse effect on innovation, competition, research and development.

In other jurisdictions, such as India, Canada, Australia, certain member states of the European Union, the United States, Israel and Jordan, the authorities have legislated in their patent laws that researchers and innovators should be allowed to conduct early work on patents which have not yet expired. A proviso is that nobody should commercially compete with the patentee while the patent is still in force. The advantage of this practice is obvious mainly in the pharmaceutical sector. Immediately when a patent expires, generic manufacturing companies are able to release their new product into channels of commerce. This also encourages competition which mostly leads to lowering of prices.

Thus, the law should protect the patent right of the inventor and still allow generic drug manufacturers to benefit as soon as the patent protection expires. As for now, South African generic companies are disadvantaged as their competitors from other jurisdictions flood the South African market with new products as soon as the patent expires.

Equitable access by all South Africans to health care and a reduction of inequalities between the private and public sector providers must be realised. We also have to realise the objective of primary health care in an effective and efficient manner. We welcome the DP’s support. They usually stage violent opposition to all legislation and actions by the ANC that seek to better the lives of all, particularly the poor. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Chairperson, I am pleased that we received support for this amendment from all parties and, I believe it is well-justified. I would, however, just like to briefly stress, once again, that this amendment applies to all patents. Because of the topicality of the issue of pharmaceuticals and generics, we understand that most speakers have focused on this, but it is really important that we realise that it applies to all patents. This is something that we should be stressing in South Africa - our scientific and technological effort on all fronts.

It is precisely because it applies to all patents that I think the issues of the restoration period and the additional time have to be reviewed in a different light altogether. We cannot just say, because it is the pharmaceuticals that may have longer periods for their processes to be dealt with, that all patents should be affected in the same way. I would also argue that I think that in respect of any question of delays in the MCC, firstly, as the hon Baloyi has indicated, considerable progress has been made there and, from Trade and Industry’s point of view, we also would like efficient and timeous processing of applications, accepting that they will take time and that one cannot fast-track it unnecessarily, but if there are delays, I think these can be dealt with by other means.

I would also like to just stress that, from the point of view of Government, we are not opposed to patented medicines. These are very often imported and can play an important role. What we are looking for is a fair, equitable and affordable spectrum of pharmaceuticals that will meet our health care needs. As many speakers have indicated, and I also wish to indicate as Minister of Trade and Industry, South Africa’s capacity to develop and produce both patented and generic drugs is increasing, and it is an objective of Government that we will improve this capacity over time.

We thank the House for supporting the Bill. We think it is an important step forward for many patent areas, including pharmaceuticals. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM - AGREEMENT ON CONSERVATION OF ALBATROSSES AND PETRELS

Agreement adopted.

CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION, MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF MARINE AND COASTAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE EAST AFRICAN REGION AND RELATED PROTOCOLS (NAIROBI CONVENTION) IN TERMS OF SECTION 231(2) OF CONSTITUTION

Convention approved.

CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF CONVENTION FOR CO- OPERATION IN THE PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARINE AND COASTAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICAN REGION AND RELATED PROTOCOLS (ABIDJAN CONVENTION) IN TERMS OF SECTION 231(2) OF CONSTITUTION

Convention approved.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION - VISITS TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING

Report adopted without debate.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON MINERALS AND ENERGY - PETITION OF EAST RAND MINE DUST ERADICATION COMMITTEE

Report adopted without debate.

CONSIDERATION OF TWENTY-FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
                     ACCOUNTS - PRESIDENT'S FUND

Report adopted without debate.

CONSIDERATION OF TWENTY-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
                     ACCOUNTS - GUARDIANS' FUNDS

Report adopted without debate.

The House adjourned at 17:11. ____ ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

                       FRIDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2002

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    The Minister of Trade and Industry submitted the
     Wysigingswetsontwerp op Handelswaremerke  [W 63 - 2002] (National
     Assembly - sec 75) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 1
     November 2002. This is the official translation into Afrikaans of
     the Merchandise Marks Amendment Bill [B 63 - 2002] (National
     Assembly - sec 75).

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces: Papers:

1. The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs:

 Annual Report and Financial Statements of the National Agricultural
 Marketing Council for 2001-2002, including the Report of the Auditor-
 General on the financial statements for 2001-2002 [RP 5-2002].

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Twenty-Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Banking Sector Education and Training Authority [BANKSETA] for the year ended 31 March 2002 [RP 95-02], tabled on 21 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the Chief Executive Officer and the management of BANKSETA for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

   2. General

      The Committee notes:

      (a) That the management is satisfied that BANKSETA has met the targets set out in its business plan;

      (b) That subcommittees meet on a bi-monthly basis to discuss issues pertaining to skills development, quality assurance and learnerships in the sector; and

      (c) That BANKSETA not only operated within its budget, but also succeeded in being cost-effective, effecting a saving of R4,4 million in respect of its administration budget.

   3. Audit Committee, internal and external auditors

      The Committee further notes that, according to the management:

      (a) The Audit Committee effectively carried out its responsibilities and functions in accordance with the statutory requirements and its own Charter;

      (b) BANKSETA engaged Gobodo Corporate Governance Services as its internal service provider;

      (c) The external auditors identified no impediments to conducting their audit of BANKSETA’s annual financial statements; and

      (d) Control weaknesses identified by the internal audit and a recommendation for the enhancement of controls are receiving adequate attention from the management.

      In view of the internal service provider having been appointed on a temporary basis only, the Committee requests that the management indicate whether a skills transfer has been effected.

   4. Decision on hearing

      In addition to noting the unqualified audit opinion of the Auditor-General, the Committee notes that the Auditor-General has not cited any particular issue of concern which would warrant the Committee’s consideration.

      The Committee therefore recommends that no hearing be held on BANKSETA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered.

1. Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Financial and Accounting Services Sector Education and Training Authority [FASSETA] and its Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2002 [RP 138-02], tabled on 23 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the Management Board and the Chief Executive Officer of FASSETA for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

   2. Internal financial control

      The Committee notes:

      (a) That the Management Board is confident that standards set by the management and the implementation of systems for internal and accounting control are adequate to ensure the integrity and reliability of the financial statements, and of the accountability of the assets of FASSETA;

      (b) That the Management Board is of the opinion that appropriate accounting policies, supported by reasonable and prudent judgements and estimates, are applied on a consistent going concern basis;

      (c) That controls include the proper delegation for responsibilities within a clearly defined framework, effective accounting procedures and adequate segregation of duties; and

      (d) That processes are in place to monitor the effectiveness of internal control, to identify and report material breakdowns and to ensure that timely and appropriate corrective action is taken.

   3. Risk management The Committee notes that:

      (a) An independent risk process has been implemented to effectively identify, evaluate and assess all risks so that the management can limit losses;

      (b) FASSETA has the necessary skills and systems to manage risks; and

      (c) The internal auditors, who have the responsibility to monitor the prescribed procedures, have direct access to the Chief Executive Officer and to the Audit Committee.

   4. Audit Committee

      The Committee notes:

      (a) That the Audit Committee held its first meeting on 29 March 2001;

      (b) That its Charter was formally adopted by the Management Board on 17 August 2001;

      (c) That the Audit Committee approved the internal auditors’ terms of reference;

      (d) That the Audit Committee recommended the compilation of a fraud prevention plan; and

      (e) That, in the opinion of the Committee, the internal auditors are operating objectively and independently.

   5. Decision on hearing

      In addition to noting the unqualified audit opinion of the Auditor-General, the Committee notes that he has not cited any particular issue of concern which would warrant the Committee’s consideration.

      The Committee therefore recommends that no hearing be held on FASSETA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered.

1. Twenty-Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Food and Beverages Manufacturing Sector Education and Training Authority [FOODBEVSETA] and the Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2002 [RP 99-02], tabled on 30 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the Chairperson, Executive Officer, Management and staff of FOODBEVSETA for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

   2. Audit Committee

      The Committee notes that, among others, the Audit Committee reviewed the risk management strategy proposed by the internal auditors and recommended the re-constitution of the Audit Committee so as to include only non-Council members.

      The Committee recommends that FOODBEVSETA submit to it a report outlining the outcome of the above review and recommendations by 30 November 2002.

   3. Collection of levies The Committee notes with concern the delay in the collection of levies due to FOODBEVSETA, and recommends that the Auditor- General report thereon in his report for the financial year ending 31 March 2003.

   4. Financial overview

      The Committee notes:

      (a) That FOODBEVSETA’s levy income more than doubled to R67,1 million;

      (b) That grant disbursements were processed and distributed timeously and that the disbursement rate rose from 73% in 2001-02 to 80% in 2001-02;

      (c) That R42 million has been earmarked for disbursement to 300 companies;

      (d) That, for the financial year under review, FOODBEVSETA recorded a surplus of R2,62 million, which, together with R2,28 million in interest, were transferred to the discretionary fund for special projects; and

      (e) That the internal auditors conducted a risk assessment exercise to identify FOODBEVSETA’s business risk areas.

   5. Decision on hearing

      In addition to noting the unqualified audit opinion of the Auditor-General, the Committee notes that the Auditor-General has not cited any particular issue which would warrant the Committee’s attention and consideration.

      The Committee therefore recommends that no hearing be held on FOODBEVSETA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered.

1. Twenty-Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Education, Training and Development Practices Sector Education and Training Authority [ETDPSETA] for the year ended 31 March 2002 [RP 134-02], tabled on 30 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the management for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

   2. Audit Committee

      The Committee notes that the Board adopted the Charter of the Audit Committee on 24 May 2002.

   3. Internal audit

      The Committee notes with concern that for the year under review no internal audit was carried out, resulting in non- compliance with section 51 of the Public Finance Management Act.

      The Committee recommends:

      (a) That the management take urgent steps to rectify this situation and report to the Committee on progress made by 15 January 2003; and

      (b) That the Auditor-General report thereon in his next report.

   4. Decision on hearing

      Having noted the unqualified audit opinion of the Auditor- General, and having considered the issue of concern cited by the Auditor-General, the Committee recommends that no hearing be held on ETDPSETA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered.

1. Thirtieth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Forest Industries Education and Training Authority [FIETA] for the year ended 31 March 2002 [RP 10-02], tabled on 28 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the management and staff of FIETA for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor- General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

   2. Audit Committee

      The Committee notes that the Audit Committee was established in October 2001, that its first meeting was held in October 2001 and that its Charter was formally adopted in April 2002.

      The Committee recommends that it be furnished with copies of minutes of all Audit Committee meetings held during the year under review.

   3. Financial matters

      The Committee notes that the finance department was outsourced after irregularities were experienced during the previous financial year, that the matter of alleged fraud reported in the 2000-01 Annual Report has not been finalised, and that criminal proceedings should have been concluded by the end of August 2002.

      The Committee recommends that it be informed about the outcome of the proceedings by 30 November 2002, should the case have been concluded by then.

   4. Decision on hearing

      In addition to noting the unqualified audit opinion of the Auditor-General, the Committee notes that he has not cited any particular issue of concern which would warrant the Committee’s attention and consideration.

      The Committee therefore recommends that no hearing be held on FIETA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered.

1. Thirty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Annual Report (including the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements) of the Mining Qualifications Authority [MQASETA] for the year ended 31 March 2002, tabled on 23 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the management of MQASETA for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

   2. Unutilised funds - R43,6 million

      The Committee notes that funds amounting to R43,6 million were saved from allocations made in respect of administrative and development costs and from unclaimed skills grants for the financial year under review.

      Although the Public Finance Management Act does not allow public entities to roll over unutilised funds, the Committee notes that the National Treasury, recognising that SETAs are at an early stage of development, has allowed them to do so.

   3. Audit Committee The Committee notes that the Audit Committee was constituted in November 2000, and that its terms of reference was confirmed in May 2001.

      The Committee further notes that, among others, the Audit Committee reviewed the effectiveness of the systems of internal control and internal auditing. The Committee recommends that a report be furnished to it and to the Auditor- General on the outcome of the review by 30 November 2002.

   4. PFMA compliance

      The Committee notes that the Management Board serves as the accounting authority, which is supposed to delegate powers to officials in writing. The Committee notes that the delegation of these powers is still in progress. The Committee recommends that the Auditor-General report thereon in his next report.

   5. Decision on hearing

      In addition to noting the unqualified audit opinion of the Auditor-General, the Committee notes that he has not cited any particular issue of concern which would warrant the Committee’s attention and consideration.

      The Committee therefore recommends that no hearing be held on MQASETA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered

1. Thirty-Second Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Annual Report (including the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements) of the Chemical Industries Education and Training Authority [CHIETA] for the year ended 31 March 2002 [RP 93-02], tabled on 30 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the management of CHIETA for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

   2. Levies

      The Committee notes with concern that the issue of the misallocation of levies with other SETAs has remained unresolved, thereby compromising CHIETA’s efforts to win the confidence of the affected companies in the sector. The Committee recommends that the management indicate to it and to the Portfolio Committee on Labour by 30 November 2002 how the situation could be rectified.

   3. Decision on hearing

      In addition to noting the unqualified audit opinion of the Auditor-General, the Committee notes that he has not cited any particular issue of concern which would warrant the Committee’s attention and consideration.

      The Committee therefore recommends that no hearing be held on CHIETA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered.

1. Thirty-Third Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Sector Education and Training Authority for Secondary Agriculture [SETASA] for the year ended 31 March 2002 [RP 111-02], tabled on 30 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the management of SETASA for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

   2. Decision on hearing

      In addition to noting the unqualified opinion of the Auditor- General, the Committee notes that he has not cited any particular issue of concern which would warrant the Committee’s attention and consideration.

      The Committee therefore recommends that no hearing be held on SETASA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered.

1. Thirty-Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Annual Report (including the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements) of the Wholesale and Retail Sector Education Training Authority [WARSETA] for the year ended 31 March 2002 [RP 115-02], tabled on 30 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the management of WARSETA for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

   2. Internal financial control

      The Committee notes that there is no material breakdown in the functioning of the internal financial control systems during the year under review, and that critical risk areas have been identified and reviewed by the Audit Committee and accordingly evaluated by the internal auditor.

   3. Risk management

      The Committee notes that an independent risk process has been implemented to identify, evaluate and assess all risks, and that WARSETA has the necessary skills and systems to manage those risks.

   4. Decision on hearing

      In addition to noting the unqualified audit opinion of the Auditor-General, the Committee also notes that the Auditor- General has not cited any particular issue of concern which would warrant the Committee’s attention and consideration.

      The Committee therefore recommends that no hearing be held on WARSETA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered.

1. Thirty-Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services Sector Education and Training Authority [MERSETA] for the year ended 31 March 2002, tabled on 30 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the management of MERSETA for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

   2. Decision on hearing

      In addition to noting the unqualified audit opinion, the Committee also notes that the Auditor-General has not cited any issues of concern which would warrant the Committee’s consideration.

      The Committee therefore recommends that no hearing be held on MERSETA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered.

1. Thirty-Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Clothing, Textiles, Footwear and Leather Sector Education and Training Authority [CTFLSETA] for the year ended 31 March 2002 [RP 112-02], tabled on 29 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the management of CTFLSETA for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

      However, the Committee notes that the Auditor-General has raised several issues.

   2. Remittances received

      The Committee is concerned that remittances were not received within 21 days, as provided for in the relevant legislation, and that remittances were at times up to three months overdue, causing significant cash-flow problems.

      The Committee recommends that the management indicate to it and to the Portfolio Committee on Labour by 30 November 2002 what steps could be taken to rectify the situation.

   3. Levy debtors

      The Committee is concerned about the outstanding issue of collecting levies from companies who did not pay them, and about the fact that several companies did not pay the levies for the period under review.

      The Committee notes the view that it is not the responsibility of CTFLSETA to collect or raise levies from debtors, but the function of the South African Revenue Service.

   4. Decision on hearing

      The Committee therefore recommends that the Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service indicate to it and to the Portfolio Committee on Labour by 30 November 2002 the steps taken to rectify the situation.

      Having considered the report and having noted the Auditor- General’s unqualified audit opinion, the Committee recommends that no hearing be held on CTFLSETA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered.

1. Thirty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Transport Education and Training Authority [TETA] for the year ended 31 March 2002 [RP 14-02], tabled on 30 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the management of TETA for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

      The Committee, however, notes that the Auditor-General has several issues of concern.

   2. Internal control

      The Committee is concerned that, although an asset register was in place, assets could not be physically identified because they had not been tagged.

      The Committee recommends that the management as a matter of urgency fully attend to this weakness in internal control by the end of the current financial year, and that the Auditor- General report thereon in his next report.

   3. Internal audit The Committee notes that no internal audit function was carried out for the year under review, resulting in non- compliance with the PFMA.

      However, the Committee notes that the Audit Committee was only appointed in February 2002, and consequently was not in a position to oversee the effectiveness of the audit function.

      The Committee recommends that the Audit Committee submit a report on the establishment, effectiveness and reliability of the internal audit function by 15 January 2003.

   4. Disclosure

      The Committee is concerned that not all members have disclosed their interests in accordance with the PFMA.

      The Committee recommends that this matter be rectified urgently and that the management furnish a report to it by 30 November 2002.

   5. Decision on hearing

      Having considered the Report of the Auditor-General, and having noted the unqualified audit opinion, the Committee recommends that no hearing be held on TETA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered.

1. Thirty-Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 23 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the Annual Report (including the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements) of the Diplomacy, Intelligence, Defence and Trade Education and Training Authority [DIDTETA] for the year ended 31 March 2002, tabled on 30 August 2002 and referred to the Committee, reports as follows:

   1. Audit opinion

      The Committee commends the management of DIDTETA for the unqualified audit opinion expressed by the Auditor-General, and trusts that future audit opinions will be equally unqualified.

      However, the Committee notes that the Auditor-General has cited several issues of concern, to which attention needs to be paid.

   2. Risk assessment

      The Committee notes with concern that DIDTETA failed to conduct a full risk assessment for the year under review. This is contrary to the provisions of the PFMA and to Treasury regulations.

      The Committee further notes that the above non-compliance impacted negatively on the completion of the fraud prevention plan.

      The Committee therefore recommends that the management conduct a full risk assessment as a matter of urgency and that the Auditor-General report thereon in his next report.

   3. Audit Committee

      The Committee notes with concern that the Audit Committee was not operational for the year under review, as required in terms of the PFMA.

      The Committee recommends that the management take urgent steps to rectify the situation, and that the Auditor-General report thereon in his next report.

   4. Internal audit

      The Committee further notes with concern that there was no internal audit during the year under review, as it had not been established in terms of various provisions of the PFMA.

      The Committee recommends that the management attend to this issue as matter of urgency, and that the Auditor-General report thereon in his next report.

   5. Delayed payment

      The Committee notes that delayed or late payments experienced by DIDTETA have had an adverse impact on its record of skills development delivery within the sector, and that an improvement in the manner in which contributions from stakeholders is paid to it, is highly desirable.

   6. Decision on hearing

      Having noted the unqualified audit opinion of the Auditor- General, as well as having considered the issues raised by him, the Committee recommends that no hearing be held on DIDTETA for the financial year under review.

 Report to be considered.

1. Thirty-Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 29 October 2002:

   The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the General Report of the Auditor-General on Audit Outcomes for the year ended 31 March 2001 [RP 58-02], reports as follows:

   A. Introduction

       The Committee studied the Report of the Auditor-General, and
       on 19 June 2002 heard evidence from the Auditor-General, the
       Director-General: National Treasury, the Accountant-General:
       National Treasury and the Chief Director of PFMA
       Implementation. The Committee expresses its appreciation to
       them for clarifying aspects of the Report.
   
   
       The Report of the Auditor-General sets out a transversal
       overview of the audit outcomes of national and provincial
       departments, and to some extent of local authorities and some
       public entities during the financial year under review. As
       such, the Report provides valuable insight into trends
       regarding compliance with financial and other directives and
       requirements.
   
   
       The Committee noted that the financial year in question was
       the first year in which the requirements of the Public Finance
       Management Act, 1999 (Act 1 of 1999) (the PFMA), were
       applicable.
   
   
       In so far as the Report under review reflects information
       contained in other Auditor-General reports, the Committee has
       not addressed issues concerning individual entities referred
       to in the Report. Such issues have been or will be addressed
       in the Committee's investigations and reports on the audit
       reports of the respective entities.
   

   B. Qualified audit reports

       The Committee noted with appreciation that over the past three
       financial years there has been an improvement in the number of
       unqualified audit opinions given by the Auditor-General with
       respect to national government departments and related
       entities.
   
   
       However, the Committee is concerned about the number of
       entities that consistently received qualifications with
       respect to both financial and compliance audit opinions. Of
       particular concern is the number of adverse audit opinions and
       the number of cases in which the Auditor-General was unable to
       express an opinion on financial statements due to lack of
       appropriate audit evidence.
   

   C. Internal control

       According to the synopsis of matters mentioned by the Auditor-
       General in audit reports, a number of entities experienced
       internal control shortcomings, not only in respect of
       financial transactions, but also with regard to matters such
       as human resource management and contingent matters. Linked to
       this is the failure of various entities to establish an
       effective internal audit function or to appoint audit
       committees, as required by the PFMA.
   
   
       The Committee noted that National Treasury has recently
       published a framework document that sets out guidelines for
       the establishment of internal audit units and audit
       committees.
   
   
       The Committee recommends that the Auditor-General give special
       attention in all audits to the adequacy of internal control
       measures in the respective departments and other entities, as
       well as reasons for the underlying weaknesses identified. In
       cases where the Auditor-General could not place reliance on
       the work of internal audits, the main reasons for non-reliance
       or limited reliance should be indicated.
   
   
       The Committee welcomes as very useful the mandatory inclusion
       in all annual reports the report of the chairperson of the
       Audit Committee of the relevant department or entity.
   
   
       Together with informative reporting by the Auditor-General on
       internal auditing in future, it will provide the Committee
       with insight into this important function on which Parliament
       has to rely for the improvement of the state of financial
       management in the public sector.
   

   D. Asset management

       The Committee wishes to express concern at the fact that,
       according to the Auditor-General's Report, many departments
       are not maintaining proper asset registers. The Committee
       welcomes the preparation by the National Treasury of a set of
       guidelines to assist departments in this regard. This poses
       serious challenges, as departments will be migrating from cash
       to accrual accounting systems.
   

   E. Listing of public entities

       The Report illuminates the difficulties experienced by the
       Auditor-General as a result of incorrect and incomplete
       listing of public entities in Schedules 2 and 3 to the PFMA.
       In this regard, the Committee was informed that the National
       Treasury has initiated various measures to rectify the matter,
       including the establishment of a Registrar of Public Entities.
   
   
       The Committee wishes to stress the need for a sound database
       to ensure that all relevant entities are clearly allocated to
       the appropriate accountable executive functionaries.
   
   
       The Committee strongly recommends that the National Treasury
       report on progress in this regard as soon as possible after
       the opening of Parliament in 2003.
   

   F. Mandate of Auditor-General with respect to public entities

       The Auditor-General alerted the Committee to the difficulties
       being experienced with interpreting the mandate of the Auditor-
       General in respect of certain categories of public entities.
       In some cases the Auditor-General is in effect not able to
       provide the assurances and information required by Parliament.
   
   
       In so far as this problem is due to inconsistencies in various
       pieces of legislation, the Committee recommends that the
       necessary steps be taken as soon as possible to clarify the
       legal position, if necessary by means of appropriate
       amendments to the relevant laws.
   

   G. Local government

       The Committee expresses serious concern about the
       deteriorating financial management situation at local
       government level, as reflected in the Auditor-General's
       Report. Of the 806 audit reports issued on municipalities for
       the 1999-2000 financial year, only 106, or 22%, had
       unqualified audit opinions.
   
   
       There are high expectations that the position will improve
       considerably once the Local Government: Municipal Finance
       Management Bill has been enacted.
   
   
       The Committee calls upon the Department of Provincial and
       Local Government to do everything in its power to provide
       guidance and assistance to municipalities to improve their
       financial management.
   

   H. General

       The Committee raised the following issues with the Auditor-
       General and other officials during their meeting:
   
   
       1.  Personnel, including vacancies, performance contracts and
           performance audits, and the implementation of the
           recommendations of the Judge White Commission;
   
   
       2.  Management of debtors and creditors;
   
   
       3.  Unauthorised and irregular expenditure;
       4.  Information technology control, including computer audits
           and PERSAL;
   
   
       5.  The responsibilities of the Accounting Officer and the
           Chief Financial Officer, and the relationship between
           them;
   
   
       6.  Lack of timeous payment of audit fees by local
           authorities;
   
   
       7.  Application of the PFMA to Parliament; and
   
   
       8.  Progress reports on the implementation of the PFMA.
   
   
       The enhanced information provided in the latest General
       Report, compared with previous years, is appreciated by the
       Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee wishes to note the
       following:
   
   
       (a) The timing of the report long after the end of the
           financial year in question (tabled on 24 April 2002, more
           than 12 months after the end of the financial year)
           renders it of less value to the Committee than timeous
           information. Ideally, the report should be available by
           the time departments start tabling their annual reports
           in September every year.
   
   
       (b) The Committee is very appreciative of the independent
           assurance role provided by the Auditor-General - the more
           traditional oversight audit role. Because of citizens'
           higher expectations of the Public Service, Parliament has
           an increasing need for more information on the effective,
           efficient and economic levels of service and the ability
           of public sector managers to ensure service delivery in
           the most cost-effective manner. The Auditor-General
           should provide more of this type of performance
           information through increased performance auditing.
   

   I. Closing remarks

       The Committee commends the National Treasury for its efforts
       to facilitate compliance with the PFMA and Treasury
       Regulations and to assist departments in their financial
       management responsibilities.
   
   
       The Committee commends the Auditor-General and his Office for
       their hard work in compiling this General Report. It is a most
       valuable contribution to enable Parliament and the Committee
       to perform their constitutional oversight functions.
   

 Report to be considered. 15.   Report of Portfolio Committee on Transport on Implementation of
 National Land Transport Transitional Act, dated 23 October 2002:


     The Portfolio Committee on Transport, having held public hearings
     on the implementation of the National Land Transport Transitional
     Act, reports as follows:


     1. National Land Transport Transitional Act, 2000


          After several years of refinement, Parliament passed the
          National Land Transport Transitional Act (NLTTA) in 2000, and
          the national Department of Transport (the Department) began to
          operationalise the Act from December 2000. The Act seeks to
          establish a coherent, developmentally oriented approach to
          public road transport, drawing in all three spheres of
          government. A central feature of the Act is that it requires
          municipal and provincial level transport planning to be the
          basis on which any future public transport operating licences
          are awarded.


          The legacy of confusion and relative anarchy in public
          transport in South African towns and cities is partly
          attributable to the fact that, historically, permits to
          operate public transport often had little connection to any
          coherent planning. This resulted in many anomalies.


          Incomplete information available to the Committee strongly
          suggested that many difficulties were being encountered with
          the implementation of the NLTTA. The Committee accordingly
          commissioned a research report and, in August and September
          2002, held a series of public hearings based on the findings
          of this research report.
     2. Research report and public hearings


          The commissioned research report, entitled "Key issues
          emerging from background research on the progressive
          implementation of transport planning in terms of the National
          Land Transport Transitional Act (2000)", was tabled before and
          discussed by the Committee in August 2002. The report was
          based on research conducted in three case-study areas - Cape
          Town, eThekwini and the Amatole District.


          The report was distributed to key stakeholders, and a series
          of parliamentary public hearings was conducted. Those making
          presentations to the Committee included the South African Bus
          Owners Association, the South African Commuters Organisation,
          the South African National Taxi Council, the South African
          Local Government Association, the Director of Traffic and
          Transportation in the eThekwini Municipality and the
          Department.


     3. Proposals and recommendations


          The Committee believes that improvements need to be made with
          regard to a number of areas.


          (a) Registration and operating licences for public transport


              The implementation of the NLTTA in respect of
              registration and operating licences is impeded by, among
              other:


              *    Incompatible information systems


              *    Uncertainty regarding procedures and timing of the
                issuing of permits and operating licences, the role of
                registrars, and succession rights in respect of
                operating licences


              *    A lack of national uniformity regarding route
                descriptions


              *    Provisions in the NLTTA for metered taxis and
                tourism services being inadequate.


              With regard to these issues, the Committee proposes:


              *    To review progress, in early 2003, on the
                   development of a single National Transport Register,
                   with all relevant institutions having compatible
                   systems


              *    That the the Department should provide for forums
                   for operating licence boards, registrars and
                   stakeholders to agree on common policies and
                   procedures


              *    To review progress in 2003 on the preparation by the
                   Department of guidelines regarding route descriptions


              *    That legislative amendments should be made to the
                   NLTTA to provide for metered taxis and tourism
                   services.


          (b) Transport planning


              Transport planning, as envisaged in the NLTTA, is being
              impeded by:


              *    Lack of an appropriate financial framework in
                   general and, specifically, insufficient funding to
                   meet statutory planning requirements


              *    Envisaged planning frequency being too high


              *    Cases where there is a lack of clarity as to whether
                   B or C municipalities should be the designated
                   planning authority


              *    Enforcement not being adequately addressed in the
                   NLTTA.


              With regard to these issues, the Committee proposes:


              *    That, during the first half of 2003, the Department
                   should report to Parliament on progress made in the
                   development of a comprehensive funding strategy for
                   transport planning, and specifically on the use of
                   funds already transferred to provincial authorities
                   for this purpose


              *    That a legislative amendment should be made to the
                   NLTTA to extend the planning cycle to a more
                   reasonable length


              *    That the Department should facilitate workshops and
                   other capacity-building processes to ensure that
                   there is clarity as to whether a B or C municipality
                   should be the designated planning authority, with the
                   understanding that this may vary from case to case


              *    Legislative amendments to the Administrative
                   Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act, 1998,
                   providing for more effective transport law
                   enforcement.
          (c) Transport authorities


              The Committee received submissions that indicated a
              number of concerns about the establishment and
              functioning of Transport Authorities (TAs), as envisaged
              in the NLTTA. With regard to issues raised, the Committee
              proposes:


              *    That the funding of TAs be addressed in the funding
                   strategy proposed above


              *    That a legislative amendment be effected to the
                   NLTTA to provide for a statutory definition of
                   "municipal public transport", as it appears in
                   Schedule 4B of the Constitution of the RSA.


          (d) Restructuring of bus industry


              The Committee received submissions, also from the
              Department, that indicated there has been a shortfall in
              the bus subsidy budget in the previous financial year,
              and again in the current financial year.


              The Committee recommends that the overall approach to
              subsidies for public transport needs to be reviewed to
              ensure that three major outcomes are achieved:


              *    Benefits to the commuter are prioritised


              *    Subsidies address all modes of public transport


              *    There are adequate levels of subsidy to meet the
                   requirements of all modes.


              The Committee also established that while there is
              comprehensive monitoring of tendered and negotiated bus
              contracts, interim contracts, representing 55% of the
              total subsidy budget, are not monitored at present.
              Capacity-building in this regard needs to be addressed.


              The Committee also heard that historically disadvantaged
              individuals remain disadvantaged in the bus industry.
              Steps must be undertaken to address this problem.


              The Committee recommends that the Department report to
              Parliament on progress towards solving these problems by
              March 2003.


          (e) Regulated taxi industry


              The Committee received submissions indicating that the
              proposed taxi re-capitalisation programme, while in an
              advanced stage of preparation, still has to be
              implemented. There are many frustrations and
              uncertainties as a result of delays in the process.


              The Committee also heard that there is a lack of adequate
              transport law enforcement, which particularly relates to
              the regulation of the taxi industry.


              The South African National Taxi Council expressed concern
              at limited progress made by the Transport Training and
              Education Authority (TETA) in regard to capacity-building
              in the taxi industry.


              With regard to these issues, the Committee:


              *    Will closely monitor progress made in the taxi
                   recapitalisation process


              *    Recommends legislative amendments to the
                   Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences
                   Act, 1998, to provide more effectively for transport
                   law enforcement


              *    Will monitor the work of TETA


              *    Recommends the effective spread to all transport
                   modes of transport subsidies.


          (f) Rural transport


              The Committee also heard that there are many challenges
              facing rural public transport, including transport of
              farm workers. The Committee proposes that the the
              Department take up this issue with provincial departments
              through the MinCom structure.


          (g) Rail transport


              The NLTTA has been explicitly cast as a "transitional"
              Act, partly because a key component of land transport,
              namely rail transport, has yet to be included within the
              framework of national land transport legislation. In this
              regard, the Committee recommends that the Department
              tables its Rail Transport Policy and Rail Strategic Plan
              in Parliament during the first half of 2003, with a view,
              among others, to taking forward the extension of land
              transport legislation to embrace rail transport.


     4. General findings and conclusions


          The Committee believes that the NLTTA represents a major
          advance in terms of ensuring a more effective and coherent
          approach to land transport. However, the implementation of
          this landmark legislation presents many challenges. Primary
          amongst these challenges is the need for a coherent and
          effective funding strategy, better integration of different
          transport modes, and a major focus on capacity-building in
          order, among others, to ensure more compatible practices and
          better communication across different spheres of government
          and among other key stakeholders. We believe that the
          Department has a primary responsibility with regard to all of
          these challenges.
 Report to be considered.

                       MONDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2002

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    Assent by the President of the Republic in respect of the
     following Bills:


      Mental Health Care Bill [B 69D - 2001] - Act No 17 of 2002
      (assented to and signed by President on 28 October 2002);


      Reinstatement of Enrolment of Certain Deceased Legal Practitioners
      Bill [B 6B - 2002] - Act No 32 of 2002 (assented to and signed by
      President on 28 October 2002);
    Insolvency Amendment Bill [B 14B - 2002] - Act No 33 of 2002
    (assented to and signed by President on 28 October 2002);


     Probation Services Amendment Bill [B 18D - 2002] - Act No 35 of
    2002 (assented to and signed by President on 31 October 2002);


    Planning Profession Bill [B 76B - 2001] - Act No 36 of 2002
    (assented to and signed by President on 31 October 2002); and


     State Information Technology Agency Amendment Bill [B 24B - 2002]
    - Act No 38 of 2002 (assented to and signed by President on 31
    October 2002).

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

 The following papers have been tabled and are now referred to the
 relevant committees as mentioned below:
 (1)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Justice and Constitutional Development. The Report of the Auditor-
     General is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
     for consideration and report:


     Report and Financial Statements of the National Prosecuting
     Authority for 2001-2002, including the Report of the Auditor-
     General on the Financial Statements for 2001-2002 [RP 197-2002].


 (2)    The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and
     report:


     (a)     Treaties between the Government of the Republic of South
          Africa and the Governments of the Arab Republic of Egypt, the
          Democratic People's Republic of Algeria, the Federal Republic
          of Nigeria and the People's Republic of China on Extradition,
          tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.


     (b)     Treaties between the Government of the Republic of South
          Africa and the Governments of the Arab Republic of Egypt, the
          Democratic People's Republic of Algeria, the Federal Republic
          of Nigeria and the French Republic on Mutual Legal Assistance,
          tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.


     (c)     Explanatory Memoranda to the Treaties.


 (3)    The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Finance for consideration and report:


     (a)     Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, 2002 [RP 222-2002].


     (b)     Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B66-2002].


     (c)     Adjusted Estimates of National Expenditure, 2002 [RP 223-
          2002].


 (4)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Trade and Industry. The Report of the Auditor-General is referred
     to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration and
     report:


     Report and Financial Statements of the Competition Commission for
     2001-2002, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
     Financial Statements for 2001-2002 [RP 144-2002].


 (5)    The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
     Trade and Industry.


     Report of the Export Credit Insurance Corporation of South Africa
     Limited for 2001-2002.


 (6)    The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on
     Public Accounts for consideration:


     Activity Report of the Auditor-General for 2001-2002 [RP 211-
     2002].

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister of Transport:

 Bilateral Air Services Agreement between the Government of the Republic
 of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Mali, tabled in
 terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.

1. The Minister of Trade and Industry:

 Report and Financial Statements of the Support Programme for Industrial
 Innovation for 2001-2002.

1. The Minister of Labour:

 Report and Financial Statements of the National Economic Development
 and Labour Council (NEDLAC) for 2001-2002.

                      TUESDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2002

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. The Speaker and the Chairperson:

 (1)    The President has in terms of section 93(1)(a) of the
     Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No 108 of
     1996), appointed Mr Renier Stephanus Schoeman as Deputy Minister
     of Health with effect from 4 November 2002.


 (2)    The President has in terms of section 93(1)(b) of the
     Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No 108 of
     1996), appointed Mr David Mickey Malatsi as Deputy Minister of
     Social Development with effect from 4 November 2002.

National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

 (1)    The following member vacated his seat in the National Assembly
     with effect from 31 October 2002:


     Mahlangu, M J.


 (2)    Message from National Council of Provinces to National Assembly:


     Bills, subject to proposed amendments, passed by National Council
     of Provinces on 5 November 2002 and transmitted for consideration
     of Council's proposed amendments:


     (i)     Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision
          of Communication-Related Information Bill [B 50B - 2001]
          (National Assembly - sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see
          Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 1 November
          2002, p 1693).


     (ii)    Insolvency Second Amendment Bill [B 53B - 2002] (National
          Assembly - sec 75) (for proposed amendments, see
          Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 1 November
          2002, p 1692).


     The Bills have been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice
     and Constitutional Development of the National Assembly for a
     report on the amendments proposed by the Council.

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:

 (a)    Report and Financial Statements of the National Research
     Foundation for 2001-2002, including the Report of the Auditor-
     General on the Financial Statements for 2001-2002.


 (b)    Report and Financial Statements of the Foundation for Education,
     Science and Technology for 2001-2002, including the Report of the
     Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2001-2002 [RP 131-
     2002].