Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, we in the official Opposition will support the Estate Agents Amendment Bill at Third Reading. We had a substantial discussion of this measure during Second Reading, as well as during the Committee Stage, in which a number of our amendments were accepted, while others were rejected. This can be called a commercial Bill. To the best of my knowledge it has no political implications. In this measure we deal with a very important part of a profession which plays a vital role in the South African economy. At the moment some 21 000 estate agents are already registered with the board. They have all been given quasi professional status since 1976, in the sense that they have to pass examinations dealing with legal and economic subjects. Estate agents have to advise people on very important aspects relating to business and commerce, and also of course on the very important aspects of acquiring a home. Estate agents are also handling millions of rand, which they have to keep in a trust account. Therefore, in giving them a greater degree of autonomy, there is at the same time the duty resting on Parliament to protect the public and to ensure that the moneys estate agents have in their trust accounts are properly controlled and audited. Should any misappropriation of such moneys indeed occur, Parliament should also provide the necessary machinery by means of which urgent action can be taken for the sake of protecting money which actually belongs to the public. In the case of such public moneys being invested it is also the duty of Parliament to ensure that interest payable on such moneys will be protected in a proper way.

I am not sure whether the 50% payable by estate agents to the fund should not be looked at again at some future stage. I believe the hon the Deputy Minister will give this matter his urgent attention.

One aspect, however, discussed during the debate on this Bill is an aspect in relation to which, I think, Parliament should learn a lesson. We in Parliament should learn to pass legislation the meaning of which is quite clear and unambiguous. It is all very nice for people in the legal profession to have a field-day fighting over the interpretation of ambiguous legislation. This is one aspect of legislation, I believe, which of course leads to unnecessary litigation, and as all hon members of this House should know, litigation is a very expensive process. I think it was one of our own Supreme Court judges who said that in order to afford litigation today one must also be able to afford buying a Rolls Royce. In that sense I must express some measure of disappointment with this legislation. The example I want to quote in this regard relates to what has been said so far in connection with clause 12 of the Bill. With reference to the simple word “forthwith” I quoted a definition taken from a legal dictionary, in which it was explained that the word “forthwith” had been interpreted by the British courts over many years to mean “within a reasonable time”. That is the definition that has always been accepted by South African courts of law as well. The hon the Deputy Minister, however, quoted another authority, who defined “forthwith” to mean “immediately”. The authority I consulted, however, said it did not in fact mean “immediately”. This proves of course that there may be conflicting opinions in this regard. These conflicting opinions, however, have also been expressed by hon members of this House in arguing the meaning of that very word. That conflicting opinion is the very reason, I submit, why we should have made it quite clear what we wanted “forthwith” to mean. Therefore, I believe, we should have deleted “forthwith” and substituted some other word or term indicating a definite and fixed period. I think this is a lesson we should learn so that future legislation will be written in clear and unambiguous terms in order to obviate unnecessary litigation afterwards. I do believe indeed it is well-known that when a bye-law, which is normally passed by a local authority, happens to be ambiguous it can be set aside by a court of law on account of that very ambiguity.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, I trust that legislators and all people involved in legislation will in future pay particular attention to this aspect. Other than that, I believe, we have improved the existing legislation, also advancing the status of estate agents in the process. Furthermore I am sure estate agents will continue to play a very important role in the economic life of South Africa in times to come.

Mr Speaker, we again thank the hon member for Hillbrow for his support, and that of his party, for the measure under discussion, including their support for this stage. I do not think it is necessary to respond to any of the remarks the hon member made. He expressed his disappointment at the hon the Deputy Minister’s decision not to accept one of the amendments he moved during the Committee Stage. I dealt with that matter yesterday, however, and I do not think it is necessary to refer to it again. I shall therefore content myself with a few general remarks about the significance and possible consequences of this legislation.

This legislation, I think, reflects the dynamic developments we have witnessed in the past decade in the property industry. This industry has developed into one of the most dynamic sectors in our entire economy. Nor is this merely the case in regard to the volume of the transactions or the amount of money handled, the most dramatic development actually relating to the increase in property the forms of which are increasingly being created and for ownership which this legislation is also making provision. It also relates to the diversity of rights and interests which can actually be secured in fixed property and which are legally recognized and protected; and which are, of course, regulated by law. Concepts such as those of sectional title, shareblock schemes, property time-sharing, 99-year leasehold, etc, are of course all relevant here.

When one compares this with the position two or three decades ago, it can rightly be said that a decade or two ago the functions of estate agents were relatively uncomplicated. It is therefore understandable that the legislation, which has to do with fixed property and with any form of property ownership and rights in fixed property must continually be brought up to date and adapted, specifically to make provision for the new ideas and concepts I have just mentioned; hence this measure.

As developments take place in the property industry, it goes without saying that they also have far-reaching implications for the relevant profession—the human side of that industry. The demands made on those operating in the industry are continually increasing. It requires better academic training and more practical experience to make a success in the field and to do justice to the profession. The Bill also reflects those higher demands made on those individuals who carry out their profession. This entails a growing status for the profession, and therefore for the members of the profession too. It also means greater responsibility and more prestige for the board and the members of the board. The Bill also reflects that facet. Virtually each of the amendments and supplementary provisions contained in the legislation attests to that fact and has been calculated to do so.

Lastly I want to say that the legislation also reflects the increasing protection being negotiated for the public or the consumer and this is necessary owing to the complexity and intricacy resulting from recent developments in the property industry. By means of this Bill the legislation is keeping pace with all new developments. In order to make provision for every new situation that crops up, an attempt is being made to protect the purchasers of fixed property, of whatever nature, and anyone who obtains some or other right or interest in fixed property, against in any way being exploited or prejudiced owing to irregularities on the part of estate agents on the one hand, but also, on the other, against damage or loss owing to ignorance on the part of the purchaser himself.

It would be wrong for the estate agent himself to see the new measure merely in a negative light. He must not see it as a necessary measure calculated to protect innocent people against exploitive estate agents. For the estate agents’ profession the legislation certainly does carry a consistently positive message and exudes a positive spirit in the sense of acknowledging the importance of the industry to our economy, its importance to our whole national economy. The instrument through which this must be brought about is the Estate Agents Board, the object of which is strikingly defined in section 7 of the principal Act as being the maintenance and promotion of the integrity of estate agents. Even the amendments which are now being proposed, and which are restrictive in nature in the sense that higher demands are being made of estate agents, have as their ultimate aim the realization of that objective of improving the integrity of the profession. The Bill therefore reflects the endeavour to improve the integrity of the profession.

For that reason I gladly support the Third Reading of this measure.

Mr Speaker, this legislation indicates to us that as soon as the people dealing with this legislation come to light with changes, the legislation is improved quite a bit. Over a period of many long years we have tried, in this House, to introduce legislation relating to job situations of which we, as members, do not always know enough. The object has merely been to protect the man in the street. It could happen that by being protective one could prejudice someone by the laws one makes. One could introduce too many laws, thereby restricting an organization that would normally be well able to look after its own affairs, the result being that the success that could normally be expected would not be achieved.

A trust fund is one of the most difficult funds to administer. That is particularly true in the case of a person obtaining clients’ money in the form of deposits, for example, or when money that does not yet form part of the purchase price is handed over to one. This is all money that can create problems for an agent. I nevertheless feel that in the case of this legislation one can see that the people who worked on it have, more or less, foreseen every eventuality. Here I have in mind the definition of “movable proper” and the reference to “trust fund”. One also sees that when it comes to offences committed by agents, the legal draftsmen have been assisted by people in the profession itself.

I think it is a good piece of legislation, but there is still one thing that bothers me, and that is the trust fund or, as it is called, the fidelity fund. I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to ensure, from time to time, that the amount of money in the fidelity fund is sufficient to make provision for any very large sale that might fall through. At the time when I had quite a bit to do with this kind of thing, one would find a single agent selling property to the value of as much as R27 million at one go. If someone like that were to act dishonestly and did not administer that trust properly, there is no fidelity fund that would be able to handle the problem.

Do you speak from experience?

Yes, I speak from experience; I never talk nonsense.

Well, that is a nasty experience.

In the present situation there is no fidelity fund that would be able to make reasonable provision for something like that. That is specifically why I want to issue a warning that people must not be allowed to get the idea that the fidelity fund is already in such a strong position as to be able to cover all sales.

I want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on the way he has gone about things in recent times. I congratulate him on his ability to co-operate with people and on being able to see when problems crop up in practice. We want to tell him that we are glad he can be part of all this.

There is something else I have very strong feelings about. It is now being said that money that is invested must draw interest for certain clients. I do not think one should go to the extreme, when money is paid to one in advance, for the purpose of having it transferred, without the period of payment being stipulated, of expecting one to have to give the person concerned an interest breakdown. This could result in people making unjust demands on someone who normally does his work well. Let us suppose that he keeps that money for three months and, in order to earn interest, invests the money. Let us suppose further that he invests the money with the wrong financial institution and, as a result, the interest is lost. In such a case there are also great problems. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to give attention to this so that we do not, in the legislation, draw the strings tighter than is necessary.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Langlaagte has spoken, because he has knowledge and experience in this sphere of activity. There is also a great deal of what he said that I can agree with. I agree wholeheartedly with him, for example, that the amendments being brought about to the existing Act do improve it, and this is to be expected, because we are dealing with a Deputy Minister who is an expert in the field of this type of legislation. As chairman of several select committees he has done research on this, even having made it his field of study as a lawyer. That experience has pre-eminently qualified him for the task of Deputy Minister entrusted with this type of legislation. I believe, too, that these amendments have not only meant an improvement to the existing Act, but will also have a salutary effect on the industry as such, and as far as the consumer public as a whole is concerned.

The hon member for Langlaagte alleged that trust funds are very difficult to control. As attorneys, we in the profession have found that those attorneys who are the most honest have no problems when it comes to administering trust funds. Those who have trouble are the ones who look for trouble. When it comes to the investment of funds I cannot agree with what the hon member said. Here we are creating an opportunity for interest to be earned on the money in trust funds.

The hon member for Sundays River pointed out that all the measures now being adopted should not be seen as a form of policing the profession. On the contrary, it redounds to the benefit of the profession. To tell the truth, the fact that the Estate Agents Board agrees with these amendments is a testimonial, as far as I am concerned, for the good portion of the profession. The largest portion of any profession is what I want to call the “good portion” of that profession; but then in every profession, as in my profession, the attorneys’ profession, one also gets those who can do better. That is why I am saying that the fact that we have the support of the Estate Agents Board for these amendments signifies that they will benefit both the profession and the public. I therefore have no problems in this connection. In any event, their amendments are probably not the last as far as the relevant legislation is concerned. There will probably be more amendments in future. The legislation does indeed have to be kept up to date in order to keep pace with new developments and changes in the industry. I believe that the improvements to the legislation that we are now undertaking here will, in the months ahead, increasingly reveal their importance. As I see it, in future—let us say the next eight months or so—this industry will be going through a downward phase, and when one has a downward trend in an industry, when money is no longer that readily available, and profits no longer made that easily, when competition is fierce and the weaker elements in the industry are eliminated, it is essential for the legislation regulating that industry to be effective and up to date. Then there is the temptation, in contrast to periods when money is freely available, to see if there are no loopholes that can be exploited. Let us go back again to the question of interest about which the hon member for Langlaagte spoke. People could then consider appropriating a little of that interest, not in any illegal way, but in an unjust way, to enlarge their profit margins when business is not doing well.

I hope that this legislation is now as up to date as it can be. I am glad that changes are now being made in regard to disciplinary cases. As a result of the simple procedure being implemented, it will now be easier to keep such matters up to date. This will result in the number of disciplinary cases, which amounted to 431 during the past year, decreasing in future. As a result of the improved measures being adopted, members will realize that there are now fewer opportunities for taking chances. The fear of prosecution ought to serve as a deterrent in this connection. I therefore hope that the changes will have a salutary effect, so much so that when we receive the annual report of this board next year, we see that there have been fewer disciplinary cases.

In conclusion I should like to express the hope that this legislation will serve to grant greater protection to the public, because I think that is, after all, everyone’s objective. The greater the size of an industry, the more chance the public has of suffering losses, and the greater is the protection that the public can and must claim for itself. The legislation takes note of all these aspects, and I therefore hope that it will be placed on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Vasco for his contribution. I share the hon member’s hope that the legislation will contribute to a reduction in the number of disciplinary cases and will result in the greater protection of the public. This legislation will be evaluated in practice, and in future one will see to what extent it has succeeded in its aim. I want to join the hon member in saying that I trust that the legislation will be worthy of the confidence expressed in it. I also thank the hon member for the two amendments he moved, which have definitely contributed towards improving it.

†I would like to come to the hon member for Hillbrow and want to thank him for his contribution to the debates on this Bill, as well as for his amendment which was accepted and which also contributed towards improving the Bill.

*In his speech this afternoon the hon member again referred to clause 12 and the amendment he had moved on that clause. Yesterday I quoted the hon member a certain authoritative source to indicate why I could not accept his amendment. He was worried about the possibility that we may pass “conflicting legislation” and wants us to eliminate that possibility. Yesterday, on clause 12, the hon member moved that the word “forthwith” be substituted by the words “not later than three days”. As he said this afternoon, amongst other things his authority for that was the decision in the case of Rex versus Justice of Worcester, a British court decision of the previous century. This judgment has not been set aside by the South African courts, and in many cases the interpretation was that, in the particular circumstances of each case, it should be within a reasonable time.

I also took this matter up with the State law advisers. Their standpoint is that if immediate action is required, the words “on-verwyld” and “forthwith” should be used. In that respect there is therefore—and in terms of this legislation we want an immediate reaction—no contradiction. There opinion is that, as the most recent dictionary sources indicate, the meaning of “onverwyld” and “forthwith” is “immediately” or “at once”. This means, however, that in various circumstances it can have different interpretations as far as the time factor is concerned. It is therefore an elastic concept that nevertheless has the connotation of “quickly” and gives satisfactory expression to the concept “without delay”.

I now also want to quote a further new authoritative source. According to the Hiemstra and Gonin legal dictionary, which is a more recent work than the Rex v the Justice of Worcester judgment, the word “forthwith” means “onverwyld, onmiddellik, da delik of summier” and “onverwyld” means “forthwith” or “immediately”. These words are used in all cases where it is undesirable to lay down a specific period, in this case three days. In this particular case a specific period could lead to more practical problems than anything else, because of its being so short a period. The intention is surely that compliance should be immediate, and in the way in which this is formulated, reasonableness is built in as a factor. The Afrikaans word “onverwyld” clearly means that there must be no delay. No one is being given any discretion, and there is no question of an extension of time. Circumstances will determine whether a person has acted forthwith. I respectfully want to tell the hon member that I do not think that there is any possibility of a contradiction when it comes to our interpreting what is meant here.

The further argument advanced by the hon member for Hillbrow during the Committee Stage yesterday was that holidays are excluded when it comes to the interpretation of periods designated in law. In my opinion that is incorrect. Where it is provided, the Interpretation Act stipulates that it be calculated with the exclusion of the first day and the inclusion of the last day. In determining the days when courts are in session, however, in terms of rules of court holidays are indeed excluded.

The Estate Agents Board and the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board are satisfied with these amendments, as proposed in this Bill, and I trust I have now also given the hon member an adequate answer to the problem about which he was concerned this afternoon.

I should like to thank the hon member for Sundays River for his contribution this afternoon. The hon member made the important point that this measure would lead to further consumer protection, and I think it is important for one to see it in that light. The hon member also referred again to the promotion of the integrity of the profession, and I believe that this legislation will indeed contribute to that.

The hon member for Langlaagte gave his support to the legislation, and I should like to thank him for that. The hon member referred to the Estate Agents Fidelity Fund. It is important for that fund to be as strong as possible, but I do not think anyone should ever have any idea about the fund having to be so strong that unlimited claims can be made on it. Therefore the board also has a duty to entrench itself in the case of claims that could arise and should ensure that it can always meet the relevant claims. In my opinion, and to the best of my knowledge, the board has also taken the necessary precautions to meet such claims against the fidelity fund as may be permitted. I also want to refer the hon member to my reply to the hon member for Brakpan last Friday. I told him that a portion of the interest paid to an estate agent who makes a trust investment is specifically employed for the further extension of the fidelity fund and that this serves as an incentive. I can tell the hon member that the fidelity fund for estate agents has increased considerably, something one is grateful for. When all is said and done, it is still necessary to exercise discipline in the industry to ensure that there are as few claims as possible against the fidelity fund.

In connection with the point the hon member made about the interest and the interest break-down, I would similarly like to refer him to the answer I gave the Hon member for Brakpan in my reply to the Second Reading debate and also to the provisions of section 32 of the Act in which the whole situation in connection with the investment of the interest is set out. It remains a fact that the person paying the money to the estate agent is entitled to determine, for his own benefit, how and with whom the investment should be made. He himself can therefore give the instructions, if he so chooses, and is still entitled to the interest. If there are specific aspects of this that will worry the hon member, he is very welcome to bring it to my attention.

In concluding this debate, I should like to wish the new chairman of the Estate Agents Board, Mr Redhill, the best of luck and everything of the best for the future. I very much look forward to further co-operation. I trust that this legislation will come up to the expectations that have been set. I should also like to thank hon members for their contributions. It was a pleasant debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 5, in line 56, after “date” to insert “of the publication in the Gazette”.

I did motivate this in my Second Reading speech and I must tell the hon the Deputy Minister that I was somewhat disappointed to find that he looked as if he was not going to accept this amendment. I hope that since then he has decided to change his mind. In his reply to the Second Reading debate he did not give me one single reason why this amendment was a bad amendment. He said, if I remember correctly, that those concerned could get the information about the registration of a video from the Patent Journal. The hon the Deputy Minister said on that occasion that the Patent Journal comes out only once a month. I did also point out that the video industry had told me that it sometimes takes up to six weeks for the Patent Journal to arrive. So, in terms of this clause they could theoretically be at risk for up to 10 weeks. If an application is lodged the day after the journal is published, it is four weeks before the next journal is published and, if it then takes six weeks before they have the journal to hand, they can be at risk in terms of this clause for a period of up to 10 weeks. Let us consider the fines available to the courts in these instances. Clause 11(b) provides inter alia:

It is quite apparent from this that a court would have the right to levy a fine of R100 000, R200 000 or R300 000 and imprison a man for up to 30 years or more if he can be fined for each article. This is a tremendous sum of money and a long period of imprisonment. It is indeed far greater than applies in the case of, perhaps, even a murder.

The other point about this clause is that this is an irrebuttable presumption. The offender is not allowed to say in court that he genuinely did not know. The courts’ hands are tied by this presumption because the proposed subsection (9) reads:

Therefore it does not avail the man to say in court: “This lodging was only yesterday; how could I, living in Kuruman, be aware of what happened in Pretoria yesterday?” [Interjections.] Kuruman was the first name that came into my head. It is a very good place and I am sure they have a lot of video entertainment there. [Interjections.] The owner of a video hire shop in Kuruman could be fined a tremendous sum of money or sentenced to imprisonment. I really cannot see what the hon the Deputy Minister’s objection is to publishing the details of any application in the Gazette and then making the date of that Gazette the relevant date on which this presumption should apply. That would be fair. This happens in many instances. After all, the date in the Gazette can be very important in terms of regulations issued by Government, etc. Therefore I believe that the hon the Deputy Minister must tell us why he objects to this publication in the Gazette.

Let us look at the clause again. The proposed subsection (9)(a) reads:

I want to emphasize “from the date of the lodging of the application”. He cannot possibly be expected to know what that date is. That is why I have moved the amendment.

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate the hon member was replied to in part and the objections stated in regard to the amendment he proposed. I want to refer to this again briefly.

The hon member is losing sight of the fact that copyright comes into existence the moment a cinematograph film is created. It is not necessary for it to be registered for copyright to be valid. Copyright also exists in cinematograph films which have not been registered in terms of the relevant Act. The proposed provision in the Bill has purely evidential value in law and merely provides that the particulars in the register may be accepted by a court. This does not mean that if a certificate is produced in court which indicates that a relevant cinematograph film has been registered, a person will automatically be guilty. Obviously he will also have to be proved guilty of the other elements of the offence. Section 18 of the Registration of Copyright in Cinematograph Films Act specifically provides that the registration applies from the date of application. The amendment all the hon member is seeking to effect applies, in fact, to that Act. If the hon member is unhappy about the position—I understand this legislation was supported by all the parties at the time—he must amend section 18 of the Registration of Copyright in Cinematograph Films Act and not this specific section which is, quite simply, a complement to that section. The Act does, in fact, provide for advertisements in the Patent Journal and not in the Government Gazette. The point is that the Patent Journal is a specialized, official publication, recognized by people in the industry as such, the scope off which is quite simply being extended to include these aspects now. In other spheres, for example in the case of patents, trade marks and the like, it has been used in practice for many years now and has worked perfectly well. The fact that it is appearing in a specialized publication must of necessity make it far easier for people in the industry to check on this and therefore to keep more abreast of matters than would be the case if they had to rely on the Government Gazette which contains a host of other official information as well. I venture to say that the man in the street is more likely to take cognizance of advertisements on his profession, which appear in a specialized journal, than he would if he had to refer constantly to the Government Gazette.

Another point that should also be made is that those persons who want to enter an industry have to keep abreast of the legal requirements pertaining to that industry. When a person obtains any kind of trading licence, surely he has to ascertain what is stipulated in his licence and what requirements he has to comply with. This is in fact the position as regards people involved in the video and cinematograph film-hire or film sales industry. The cinematograph films or copies, these people hire out or sell do not materialize and of nowhere, but are in fact obtained from a supplier, and it should be very easy for them to obtain the necessary written proof from the relevant supplier, who is eager to do business with them, that he has the right to supply the relevant material.

In view of the foregoing I feel that the hon member’s amendment should not be accepted because this legislation would then conflict with the Registration of Copyright in Cinematograph Films Act and this would lead to practical problems. If the hon member wants to effect an amendment, he has to amend that Act and not this legislation which simply has a bearing on the Registration of Copyright in Cinematograph Films Act.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for East London City most sincerely for his contribution. In my opinion, he argued the matter very well.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central yesterday told the House that according to his knowledge there are about 12 000 films not registered under copyright. I will refer this at a later stage of my argument in relation to the approximately 800 registered films. I indicated yesterday that I am not inclined to accept the hon members amendment. As the hon member for East London City said, the wording of this clause was formulated in such a way as to correspond to the wording and procedures contained in section 6 of the Registration of Copyright in Cinematograph Films Act, 1977, read with the regulations promulgated under the Act. I may add that I have been advised that since the draft Bill was published in October last year, we have received no comments on or queries about this specific clause.

It is correct that three presumptions are created in clause 10. However, only two of these have reference to films registered under the Registration of Copyright in Cinematograph Films Act, 1977, and these are contained in subsection (9). Of these two presumptions the one contained in paragraph (b) is rebuttable. The third presumption which is also rebuttable, is contained in the proposed subsection (10) of clause 10, and has reference to all cinematographic films whether they are registered or not.

I should like further to inform the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that the Patent Journal is an official Government publication, which is published on the last Wednesday of every month. The journal contains details of inter alia applications received for the registration of copyright in cinematographic films, which for all intents and purposes appear to be acceptable for registration. Interested parties are afforded a period of one month from the date of publication in which to lodge objections to such registration. It follows immediately that the journal may not necessarily contain applications for registration which may have been received during any particular period. Applications which are not complete will not be published. Furthermore I am advised that the Patent Journal is obtainable from the Government Printer at a price not higher than the price of the Gazette. Details of all patent, trademark, designed and cinematographic films applications are available at the Patents Office on every work day. The information is basically derived from the register kept at the Office of the Registrar of Copyright. There is no difference between this record and records relating to patents, trademarks and designs.

It must also be noted that it is normal practice and indeed probably the only practical way of providing registration facilities. That is by having one central office. In this regard I could refer hon members for instance to the Deeds Office. What is further important is that it should be noted that registration of these matters is not compulsory. That does not mean that owners who have not availed themselves of this facility will enjoy no protection; on the contrary, the Copyright Act 1977, has a reference to all films. It follows therefore that registration is not a prerequisite for copyright protection. As the hon member indicated, 800 films—I am advised that the number is thereabout— have been registered, while the vast majority have not been registered.

Mr Chairman, I have replied extensively now to the hon member. As I indicated yesterday, I considered this and the other amendments moved by the hon member very positively. I do regret, however, that I cannot accept them.

Mr Chairman, I first want to deal with the points made by the hon member for East London City. He mentioned the fact that copyright does of course exist in other films apart from the ones that are registered. In this particular clause, however, I should like to point out to the hon member that we are actually only dealing with films that are registered. Those that are not registered do not fall within the ambit of this amending clause. It only applies to registered films, and it is only in terms of the clauses that are relevant in this respect that in terms of this specific clause a presumption applies. It is only in this particular instance.

I do not agree that it is in conflict with section 8 of the Copyright Act, mentioned by the hon member because it does not affect the date from which copyright is held. The only effect this amending clause would have relate to the date on which the presumption of knowledge applies. That is all we are talking about. We are only talking about the presumption of knowledge. It is not in conflict therefore with section 8 of the principal Act at all because copyright could still apply from the date of the lodging of the application. Presumption of knowledge of that copyright, however, would only apply as from the date of publication in the Gazette, as I have recommended in the relevant amendment.

The hon member for East London City also said that he believed that video owners should of course bring themselves up to date on what the law was in relation to their particular trade. I agree with him. I could not agree with him more. That is precisely why I want it in the Gazette because that is the easiest and quickest way to enable him to know that this particular registration presumption applies. That is why I say again that I cannot see that that is an argument.

As far as comment is concerned, it is fairly obvious to me that the hon the Deputy Minister’s department has not received any representations from the video industry. Perhaps they should have made representations. However, I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that we have received a memorandum from the Cape Video Association which maintains that it has the right to make representations on behalf of the entire industry because it is also associated with the South African Home Movie Association. The Cape Video Association has a membership that extends throughout the Cape—Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and East London—while the SA Home Movie Association operates in Transvaal and in Natal. I think, therefore, that they are fairly representative of the trade.

In relation to this particular clause that seeks to amend section 26, I should like to quote from their memorandum. They state:

I think that is eminently fair, Sir. They go on to say:

I think that is the Motion Picture Association of America:

Therefore, Sir, they have taken it upon themselves to try to get this information from the MPAA. For nine months they have not received that list of registered films that they should be receiving each month. Bearing that in mind, I feel that the amendment that I have moved is a reasonable one.

Perhaps I could try to suggest a compromise solution to the hon the Deputy Minister in this regard. He mentioned the Patent Journal. Instead of putting the date of Gazette why do we not make it the date of publication in the Patent Journal? We could make that the date on which the presumption applies. The problem is how these people are to know exactly what has been registered. They cannot know this. They can know that copyright exists but I feel that this is a very onerous presumption, and at law, we do not like presumptions. We really only believe that a presumption should apply in cases of dire necessity although we also believe that the hon the Deputy Minister has made out a case for the fact that a presumption should apply. We feel that the situation and the problem in the industry are such that we are prepared to grant him the right to have that presumption. We are prepared to support that provision but we must give these people a fair right to be able to know when that presumption is going to apply.

That is why I moved my amendment.

Mr Chairman, I listened very closely to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and I should like to support his request to the hon the Deputy Minister to accept the amendment he has just moved. I think the change to include the Patent Journal is a good one because it accommodates the fact that this is the journal that is accepted by the trade as being the one in which these registrations are listed. I support the hon member because I feel he is being very logical when he asks how a person can be expected to know about something before it has even been published. I think that is a reasonable question to ask the hon the Deputy Minister. I should like to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to consider accepting this amendment even in its amended form where it says that it should be published in the Patent Journal. This is a reasonable request.

Mr Chairman, although I am aware of the danger of repetition, I just want to refer briefly to a specific aspect which the hon member for Amanzimtoti would also seem to have latched onto now. I do not think hon members fully understand the position as set out in the Registration of Copyright in Cinematograph films Act. The provision at present before this Committee is, to put it quite simply, in full agreement with the relevant section in that Act. I should like to quote the entire section because I think this will hopefully allay the fears the two hon members have voiced. I am quoting section 18 which reads:

1. (1) When an application for registration of the copyright in a cinematograph film has been accepted and advertised in the prescribed manner, and the application either—
   1. (a) has not been opposed and the time for notice of opposition has expired; or
   2. (b) has been opposed and has been granted,

If one wanted to effect any amendment, one would have to amend this section of the Act and not the relevant section in the legislation otherwise the two sections would not be in agreement which in practice would cause more problems than it solved.

Mr Chairman, with the greatest respect to the hon member’s argument, that particular section which he has read out affects the date of the registration of that copyright. The clause with which we are dealing affects the date on which a presumption comes into force—a totally different subject, and that is a presumption of knowledge on the part of the video owner. Whatever the date of the logment of that particular application may be, it is not going to affect the presumption, and this deals only with the presumption. I submit, with the greatest respect, that it does not affect that section which he read out because it has totally to do with the presumption.

This is the third turn that I have had on this clause and I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he will consider the compromise that I have suggested, in other words that the presumption should apply from the date of publication in the Patent Journal. I have asked one of my more legally qualified colleagues whether it is not perhaps their opinion too that if the amendment were to be accepted there would be no conflict between the legislation and the Act from which the hon member for East London City quoted.

Mr Chairman, it is our intention to bring about the best possible legislation. This is the attitude of hon members on this side and nothing else. I have difficulty as I have already explained and as my hon colleagues has already argued too. We have actually on more than one occasion dealt with it.

First of all I want to say that I shall also refer the debate on this clause to the Advisory Committee on Copyright for their consideration. Even publication in the Government Gazette will not necessarily mean that a person will have knowledge of all applications filed at the office. I have already referred to applications which have not been completed properly. The only true record is the one in the office. So it is not to say that all publications will come to the knowledge of the industry.

*The applications of all firms are placed on the register immediately and all information is available from the date of application. The hon member must understand that we are merely trying to introduce orderly and reasonable measures. However, as I have said, I shall bring what the hon member said to the attention of the advisory committee. I trust I have now duly replied to the hon member’s arguments.

Amendment I negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to this clause which stands in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

In terms of the proposed paragraph (b) of section 27(6), in the case of a second or subsequent conviction an offender is now liable to a fine not exceeding R10 000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment, for each article to which the offence relates. Let us assume there are 10 articles involved. That will mean that this Parliament is giving the courts the right to impose a penalty of R100 000 or 50 years imprisonment, or both. This is a frightening penalty. As a matter of fact, the crime of murder can carry a lesser penalty. What I am seeking to achieve with my amendment is, in the first instance, to limit the period of imprisonment to 10 years, so that no matter how many articles are involved no court can sentence the offender to imprisonment for longer than 10 years. That I think is penalty enough. Secondly I want to limit the fine to R50 000. I do not feel as strongly on this as I feel on the terms of imprisonment. It is simply a question of money which may not prove to be so important. In the third place I am seeking to omit the rest of the proviso because, as I have said in the Second Reading, it inflicts a restraint on the trade of the offender. He is, in other words, subjected to double punishment, or treble punishment, because he can be fined, he can be imprisoned and he can have a restriction imposed upon him preventing him from carrying out his business ever again.

If by some mischance the hon the Deputy Minister does not see his way clear to accept my amendment, then the suggestion which the hon member for Amanzimtoti made in the Second Reading, namely that we should give the courts the right to limit the period of restriction, would be sensible. In other words, in terms of this clause it looks …

Don’t spoil it for him. He can argue it himself.

Sir, with friends like these one does not need enemies.

I think that would at least be some improvement of what I consider to be not good legislation. Obviously these offences happen in many countries of the world. The hon member for Pinetown—perhaps that is why the hon member for Umhlanga is so cross that we are supporting the hon member for Amanzimtoti’s amendment—has researched this particular aspect and he has not been able to find that in either England or America there is any restraint of trade clause imposed on offenders for this particular offence. It would appear to me that in this instance we are going further than any other country is prepared to go. The vast majority of video films we see in this country originate in the USA or Britian and we are now imposing restraint of trade restrictions which not even the originating countries are prepared to impose. When one considers this, one begins to wonder at precisely what is happening.

Mr Chairman, at this stage I want to move the amendment standing in my name of the Order Paper, as follows:

I move it now because it has been mentioned by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. I am afraid we cannot support his amendment, but I was very pleased to hear him say that if the Deputy Minister will not accept his, he will support mine. We cannot accept his amendment because we do believe, as I said at Second Reading, that there could be the case—no doubt there are going to be cases in the future—where there are people who are nothing but thieves and who are in the business of thievery, that is to say that they are running big operations—we have heard from the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that something like R30 million is stolen from the people who own these films—in this particular area of theft, which I insist on calling it, and we believe that such people should be punished in such a manner that they will not be allowed to trade in future. There are precedents for this type of action. The medical profession, for example, will certainly cancel a medical practitioner’s registration if he if found to have acted in an unethical or incorrect manner. It has been said that these people are highly educated people and that they should know what they are doing. We also know that in the horseracing fraternity jockeys can be warned off for life if they conduct themselves in an improper manner, and the same applies to bookmakers. We do have many precedences in our society where organizations, associations or the law restricts a person from carrying out his particular activity because of his improper behaviour. We therefore believe that because of the scale of this theft there should be this provision to prevent such a person from trading. This will not apply to a first offender, but only to a person who has had a previous conviction. A person should therefore have known what he was doing. We believe that this clause should stand as it is in this respect.

Having said this, I now want to make my appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to accept my amendment. As the clause stands at present, there is no discretion given to the court to limit the period or to set a period for which or during which this person cannot practice his trade. We believe it is rather harsh to ban him for life. My amendment therefore asks that after “date” should be inserted “and for a period” in which case the court has the discretion to ban a person from trading or to restrain him from trading for a period. That period could be one year or for life. I believe that it is a discretion which the courts should have. If the hon the Deputy Minister will accept this amendment, his own amendment, which appears on page 166 of today’s Order Paper, will need to be similarly amended as it is virtually word for word the same as the clause in the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central for his interest in this legislation and likewise the hon member for Amanzimtoti and for their genuine attempts to improve this legislation.

I already indicated to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central yesterday that I would accept part of his amendment. I am also prepared to accept the amendment of the hon member for Amanzimtoti. However, we should get together and look at all the amendments to make sure that we achieve what we are in agreement with. As I have indicated, I will accept the amendment of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central in part only. I am prepared to fix a maximum for the penalties prescribed as suggested by the hon member, namely a maximum R50 000 or 10 years. However, I cannot accept the proposal that the rest of the proviso should be deleted.

From only a few raids carried out by the police it was obvious that innumerable pirate copies are being offered for selling or letting.

*Let me refer, in this regard, to an article which appeared in Die Burger this morning. I want to refer to it with appreciation. The hon member for Brakpan also referred to this aspect yesterday and I do not know whether the hon member read this morning’s report this. This report reads: “Duisende video’s onwettig”. Did the hon member read the report?

No.

I want to advise the hon member to read this newspaper since he will be the poorer for not having read it. It contains important answers to questions the hon member asked yesterday. [Interjections.] I am merely trying to inform the hon member further about a matter about which he concern expressed in this House yesterday. What is important in the discussion of this particular clause is what was stated in the report by Mr Askew, Security Director of the Motion Picture Association of America—MPAA. This is the organization, so we were told here, which controls virtually the whole of the video industry in South Africa and which acts on behalf of 11 of the major American and 16 local video distributors. According to him at least 3 500 different illegal video films are in circulation in the country. In the report detailed reference was also made to the action taken by the police. Brigadier Van Heerden was quoted. He said there were 252 registered businesses in the Peninsula. The police visit these places regularly. Films are scrutinized at random and immediate action is taken when pornographic material is found. That is the one aspect. The other point the gentleman made was that the most important function of that body was to trace pirated videos. He said:

I think it is important that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central should bear these figures in mind as far as his amendment is concerned. I read further:

This body, too, maintains that when they come across those indecent videos they notify the police. So a contribution is being made in this way, too. I also referred to this specifically in reply to the amendment of the hon member and the problem he has with the proviso to this clause.

†The provisions regarding the further penalty of allowing the court a discretion in certain circumstances to prohibit a person “from a date determined by the court, from carrying on, or having any direct or indirect financial interest in or deriving any direct or indirect financial benefit from, any business which sells, lets, offers, exposes or distributes reproductions or adaptations of cinematograph films” are a further effort to combat this evil.

In accepting the proposal of the hon member in part, Mr Chairman, I understand that I will have to accept his amendment as it stands and then move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, which will reinstate the provision as contained in the proviso and which will then allow the hon member for Amanzimtoti to move his amendment. I think we will then arrive at what I intended to achieve with the legislation. Accordingly, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 2. On page 9, from line 4, to omit subsection (8) and to substitute:
   • (8) (a) In the case of a conviction of a person of an offence in terms of subsection (1) in respect of the copyright in a cinematograph film the court may in its discretion, in addition to any other penalty which it may impose under subsection (6), prohibit that person from a date determined by the court, from carrying on, or having any direct or indirect financial interest in, or deriving any direct or indirect financial benefit from, any business which sells, lets, offers, exposes or distributes reproductions or adaptations of cinematograph films.
   • (b) Any person who commits an act contrary to a prohibition contemplated in paragraph (a), shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding ten thousand rand or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years.

Lastly I should like to point out that the court has a discretion and will surely not impose a more severe sentence unless it is warranted by the facts of the case.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for indicating that he is prepared to accept my amendment. Now that he has moved his, I accordingly move as an amendment to his amendment:

Having moved that amendment, I should like to say to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that I do believe that we have now given the court a discretionary power which should accommodate his fears. It certainly accommodates mine.

Mr Chairman, I should also like to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for indicating that he will accept part of the amendment I have moved. I want to say to him that we do not object to his subsequent amendment and, as I told the hon member for Amanzimtoti, we will support his amendment. I think we are at one that there is an evil we need to stamp out. This is why we have tried to be as reasonable as possible in regard to this particular Bill.

As a matter of interest, I was told today by a person who has a good knowledge of this particular business that Pieter-Dirk Uys is estimated to have lost about R20 000 from the video of his show “Adapt or Dye”. We in these benches naturally would approve of as many people as possible seeing that show, but that Pieter-Dirk Uys should have lost R20 000 because of piracy of his video is certainly not equitable. We thank the hon the Deputy Minister for indicating that he will accept our amendment.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I did not read the report in Die Burger that the hon the Deputy Minister wanted me to read, but I shall take a look at it. I did, however, look at page 4 of this morning’s Cape Times. I think that report is more alarming than the report in Die Burger, but that is a debate that can wait for some other day.

I am not quite sure about the elegance of the wording of the proviso and the subsection. The hon the Deputy Minister’s amendment, on page 166 of the Order Paper, is that subsection 8 should be omitted and substituted by the following:

Virtually the same words are repeated in the proviso in paragraph (b) of clause 11, at the bottom of page 7 of the Bill, except for the words “the court may in its discretion, in addition to any other penalty which it may impose under subsection (6)”. This is the only difference between the reading on page 166 of the Order Paper and the wording at the bottom of page 7 of the Bill. To me this seems like both clumsy wording and clumsy legislation. I should like to hear the hon the Deputy Minister’s thoughts on this. An offence “in terms of subsection (1)” is the same as an offence “in terms of this section”. Actually these two phrases have exactly the same meaning; and the two sentences contain exactly the same wording. As far as I am concerned there seems no sense in this.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member refers to page 7 of the Bill, he will see that the section which I have moved should be omitted reads as follows:

Now the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has moved an amendment in terms of which the amount is to be increased to R50 000. This is what is being retained. It would therefore not be logical simply to go on and add the new proposed section which begins “in the case of a conviction …”. We were therefore obliged to introduce a new subsection. I cleared this matter up with the law advisers. They feel that this fits appositely into the legislation. The words do not follow logically in this case, but I can give the hon member the assurance that they have been cleared with the law advisers that they do fit appositely into the legislation.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2A agreed to.

Amendment 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I was putting a few questions to the hon the Minister and I hope he will reply. Another point I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister is that it has for years been one of the top priorities that the IDC should develop border areas, and the hon the Minister will probably concede that that is the case. I should now like to know from the hon the Minister whether this is still the top priority or one of the top priorities. If so, I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether he rejects what Dr Wimpie de Klerk said in Rapport last Sunday, viz:

Border area development was one of the mainsprings of Dr Verwoerd’s entire strategy, and we debated it in this House for years. I should like to know what the hon the Minister’s standpoint is in this regard. Indeed, we wish to know what the whole situation of the IDC is and whether the development of the border areas is still the top priority of the IDC and if not, whether it is at least one of its priorities.

The hon the Minister referred yesterday to the hon the Prime Minister’s conference on 12 November 1981 in which he said that regional development would in future play a very major, and even a greater, role and that the IDC would be increasingly involved in this. The question that now arises—and this is something that the public at large is concerned about—is whether this is a starting point in economic development of this nature, which will at a later stage develop into political mixing. The hon the Minister must please indicate to us whether this is the case or not.

These are the few questions I wish to put to the hon the Minister, and if he is unable to reply to them fully now, then we shall debate them further during the Committee Stage. I support the legislation.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Walmer and the hon member for Sunnyside for the reluctant support they give this amending Bill. Of course, the hon member for Walmer got wind of the idea that this legislation involved ideological objectives. However, it is clear to me that he has ideological objections to the legislation. He is worried that the policy of decentralization and of regional development will succeed and that we shall give effect in the economic sphere, too, to the independence of the national Black states. That, of course, is the last thing the PFP wants to see, viz that the Black states should be given independence in the economic sphere as well and that the policy of separate development should succeed. Later I shall come back to certain standpoints adopted by the hon member for Walmer.

As usual the hon member for Sunnyside did not quite understand what this amending Bill entails. He usually has only a vague idea of what it is all about.

Since apparently you understand it, explain it to us.

This amending Bill has two main objectives, of which one is to extend assistance to individuals and partnerships. The second important objective of this legislation is that the development efforts of the IDC should also be extended to the TBVC countries, viz those countries which, prior to independence, formed part of the Republic of South Africa. These are the two main aims of this legislation. The later aim merely confirms existing practice.

The IDC stimulated industrial development in the independent national states even before they became independent. This statutory amendment gives them the right to continue to do so and also to provide additional assistance not only for new industrial establishment, but also to existing industries, for the further stimulation of industrial establishment there. In my opinion this is an extremely important step in the direction of a better geographic distribution of industrial development in Southern Africa. In my opinion it is also a very important statutory step in the direction of the eventual realization of the vision of the hon the Prime Minister, viz the development of a constellation of Southern African states. Although the IDC is not authorized to grant economic development aid to other neighbouring states in Southern Africa, it is in my opinion very important that this statutory amendment be effected in order ultimately to ensure that such a constellation of states will arise so that we as separate peoples and populations in this subcontinent will be able to live alongside one another in safety, peace and prosperity. I emphasize the aspect of prosperity. This is essential because without that we shall not be able to achieve peace and security here.

The IDC—and here I associate myself with the hon member Dr Welgemoed—possesses enormous reserves of know-how that they have acquired with regard to the stimulation of industrial development, and I really trust, therefore, that they will make this know-how that they have acquired available to neighbouring states which do not form part of the TBVC countries and do not form part of the Republic of South Africa itself.

If I may refer again at this point to the hon member for Walmer, I wish to indicate that the IDC is an extremely important instrument in the field of regional development in South Africa. It plays an important role in the field of decentralized establishment of industries and also forms an important subdivision of the whole process of industrial development in the broad sense of the term. It also contributes towards the creation of employment opportunities in those areas where there is a shortage of such opportunities. Furthermore, the IDC also plays a major role in the decentralization of general economic development in the country.

It is imperative that we in South Africa should achieve a better geographic distribution of economic activities in order to utilize to the full the development potential of South Africa. There are important resources to be found throughout South Africa—agricultural resources, mineral resources, manpower resources etc—which must be utilized because it is important for us to do so in order to ensure the utilization of the full development potential of the country. It is also essential in this regard to take cognizance of geographic …

Mr Speaker, is the hon member suggesting a change in the objectives of the IDC from its original charter, in which it is prescribed that it will involve itself in undertakings for economic reasons and for no other reason whatsoever?

Mr Speaker, that is by no means the case. Indeed, I am trying to explain to the hon member now that in South Africa it is essential also to achieve a better geographic distribution of economic activities to be able to utilize the full development potential of South Africa and also of Southern Africa. This is the specific reason for this. However, the hon member for Walmer only sees one thing, viz the agglomeration benefits that exist when one has a concentration of economic activities, for example in the four metropolitan areas in South Africa. That is the only benefit the hon member wants to perceive. In fact, he indicated to us here yesterday that where one stimulates economic development, particularly industrial development, and does so at places other than those to which I have referred, it is uneconomic to do so because it costs more to establish industries there. What the hon member never wants to take into account, of course—and this crops up repeatedly in speeches he makes in this House—are the social costs that this concentration of economic activities entail. This involves very high social costs. There is the increased incidence of crime when one has an over-concentration of people. The hon member for Houghton very often says here that the PWV is only a small area in comparison with other metropolitan complexes in the world. However, the fact remains that in the majority of cases, providing infrastructure in the metropolitan areas costs a great deal more than it would in decentralized areas.

Let us take the one single example of the provision of roads. The hon member for Walmer ought to know what I am talking about because he is a construction engineer. However, I suspect that the next time he stands up to discuss this matter in this House, he will first have to declare his interest. The hon member likes us to have to spend an amount of R5 million and more per kilometre on our freeways in the urban areas as against the less than R1 million per kilometre it will cost in the decentralized areas, because it will be easier for his company to make a bigger profit out of these activities. [Interjections.]

Moreover, as far as infrastructure is concerned, when one has a concentration of people there is the question of the provision of housing. This is a very important factor and entails very heavy social costs in this particular regard. Therefore I want to say to the hon member that when we discuss this matter he must take these factors fully into account.

I want to mention a final example to the hon member, a very important one, viz the supply of water. If the IDC were simply to continue stimulating industrial establishment in the PWV area I want to ask the hon member for Walmer where in South Africa we would find the water to supply that industrial development? The Vaal River and the other rivers in the vicinity of the PWV area are already fully utilized. Already we have to pump water across the Drakensberg from Natal to provide the PWV area with sufficient water. The hon member’s benchmate, the hon member for Greytown, has more than once accused the Government in this House of stealing Natal’s water. However, the hon member for Walmer tells us that we must continue with the development of industries in the PWV area. The hon member must realize that factors such as water supply, for example, are restrictive of further industrial development. This is a very important consideration and this is one of the factors that must be taken into account when industries are decentralized in South Africa. However, we on this side of the House are accustomed to the hon member for Walmer not wishing to perceive that. It is a fact that we in South Africa cannot think along unitary lines. We cannot think along politically unitary lines as the PFP usually wants to think, nor can we think solely along unitary lines in the economic sphere. We in South Africa have economic development regions, each with its own inherent development potential and problems. We know that these regions are economically interdependent on one another and that they also cross the borders of states. That, too, is quite correct. It is true, after all, that various geographic areas in South Africa need specific attention and in this regard, too, the IDC plays a very important role.

To illustrate that regional development is important I should like to refer to the example of my own region. This is the example we have in the central part of South Africa, viz region C, incorporating the Free State and Qwaqwa. In this regard the radical right-wing party as usual wants to use Qwaqwa as a very useful example to show us how homeland development should take place and how the independence of states can be achieved. They think that if Qwaqwa can become independent then their chimerical homeland of Hexania can also become a reality. They will want to see that South Sothos from the Free State be pushed into Qwaqwa, thus immediately solving the problems of the area, as if that could alleviate in any way the unemployment situation in that particular area. What is important is that one should not think in terms of compartments in this regard. The radical right-wing party is inclined—in fact, “inclined” is not the right word, because they are always doing it—to think in terms of compartments in this regard. These Hexanias and Oranias of theirs, and all the other chimeras they conjure up, are specific caricatures of apartheid.

For example, one sees the reality in our situation in the Free State. We hope that Qwaqwa, too, will in due course achieve political independence. They, and we in the Free State, know that we can never be totally independent of one another economically. The Free State and Qwaqwa will continue to be economically dependent upon one another. We in the Free State shall continue to be dependent on the labour we obtain from these areas, and Qwaqwa on the skills and job opportunities provided by the Whites. We are not interested in developing all the region there separately and dividing them into watertight compartments; we are interested in jointly developing this central region of South Africa in the interests of all of us. That is what is important to us there.

It is also an economic reality that Lesotho, which is an independent country and never formed part of South Africa, does not fall within this economic sphere of influence of the region in question. They are also dependent on the Free State for many of their needs and for the knowhow they are able to obtain in the Free State. As far as the gold mines and our farms are concerned, we are reliant on their labour. We are independent upon one another and that is a reality we shall have to take into account.

We in this region have already made tremendous progress in the decentralization of industries. I do not wish to take up the time of this House by listing everything that has already been achieved there, but we are very grateful for the wonderful service rendered by the IDC in this particular area. We thank them for it. This statutory amendment makes the achievement of the main objectives of the corporation, viz the creation of prosperity and the creation of employment opportunities for all, far more accessible. For that reason we take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, at first glance this Bill which just contains four clauses of which two are of a very minor importance—this means that there are just two clauses which have a large measure of importance—should have gone through the House very quickly and without much debate. We know, however, after the long debate yesterday and again this afternoon, that it has provoked a lot of debate on the two more important clauses.

Essentially the Bill is firstly empowering the Industrial Development Corporation to lend or advance money not only to companies or corporations, but also to individual persons. We agree with this because as we move into developing Southern Africa as a whole it is essential that individuals as well as companies should be encouraged to develop. We sincerely hope that this provision will in future encourage private enterprise and individuals now that funds from the IDC will be available to them.

Clause 3 enables the corporation to enter into development projects in the former territories of South Africa, those territories which are now called the TBVC countries. We in the NRP believe that this is also very good because it is essential that those territories be developed industrially. As I have said, it looks very simple at first glance, as though we should approve of it and go ahead with it, and yet, as a result of this debate, we have heard a lot more about the importance of the IDC. I think we are indebted to the hon member Dr Welgemoed for telling us about all the development the IDC has done in the past in developing South Africa’s existing major industrial areas. He mentioned, for instance projects like Sasol, Alusaf, ADE and so on. It is well known to all hon members what tremendous influence and impact the IDC has had in the development of South Africa over the years. I believe that we are to a large extent indebted to the IDC for initiating many of these projects and we sincerely hope that the corporation will go from strength to strength.

The hon member Dr Odendaal discussed the need for the decentralization of industrial development at some length. He talked about regional development which is part of the Government’s new decentralization plan. In this respect I am very much inclined to agree with what the hon member said because there is no doubt that we have to develop the total potential of Southern Africa to a far greater extent than we have to date. Today our industrial development is concentrated in just a few major key areas around the major cities, and I think it is essential that a programme should be initiated, as has been done, to develop further areas throughout South Africa and especially in the national states. It is absolutely essential for peace and harmony among the various national groups in South Africa in the long term that these people should feel a degree of pride and self-respect in their own territories. We therefore believe that the IDC is correct in having moved forward as it has done.

The hon member for Walmer said yesterday that the TBVC countries are part of one economic and political entity, if I am quoting correctly. I agree with him I think it is accepted by all today that as far as economics are concerned, we are totally interdependent. I would go even further and say that this is so even in the case of the countries bordering South Africa. Only a week or two ago, with the Accord of Nkomati, we saw how dependent neighbouring states are on South Africa for healthy economic development. I am therefore inclined to support the hon member for Walmer’s statement that we are a single economic entity.

However, he then took it further and said that we are also one political entity. I were to submit that this depends on what one’s perception is of how the political development of South Africa will take place. If he sees it in the light of his party’s policy, I disagree with him, but if he is prepared to consider my party’s policy for the political development of Southern Africa and agrees with it, then we are only too ready to say that we do see a single political union in Southern Africa, based on the principle in which my party believes, namely pluralism. This is going to come about in time as the economies of the states in Southern Africa grow and become more interdependent economically, as we learn to trade and to trust one another. I believe therefore that political unions of some sort will come about. They will be based on the self-determination of peoples in their own national states but there will certainly be a confederal basis to such a union. I want to put it to the hon the Minister that, in time, the Government is going to accept the NRP’s concept of a Southern African confederation, just as it has accepted the NRP’s concept of the Republic of South Africa. We have a tricameral Parliament coming into being in a matter of a few months. In this very city of Cape Town there will be a new Parliament—with three Chambers—with Coloureds, Indians and Whites members. That is the philosophy of the New Republic Party in principle and the Government has accepted this. That was why we supported them in the referendum. [Interjections.] Hon members in the CP say that the NP should walk over to us. We are realists and we understand the position in which we find ourselves.

There are two types of political activity. There is policy or philosophical politics and there is also power politics. We in the NRP have no great illusions about what we are. We understand that we are a minor party with little influence in power politics, but what we also realize and state is that when it comes to policy politics or philosophical politics, we are winning. [Interjections.] I remember saying in this House three years ago that when it comes to the political philosophy in South Africa, we have won. The fact that we have a tricameral Parliament coming into being is an indication that we have won.

Does the NRP believe in the retention of the Population Registration Act?

That hon member can ask these little questions as his party often does. We are pragmatists and we know that as the political wheel of change turns, certain things that that party shouts and screams from platforms and in their Press should be removed first will in time be amended and changed to suit the changing needs of South Africa, just as the Government recently accepted the principle of open central business district areas. This is a principle which we in this party have mooted for years. We put it across in private members’ motions in the past and the Government has now accepted it. [Interjections.] This is evolutionary change and a movement forward in accommodating the different needs of South Africa.

Are we going to evolve to that?

It will work that way. The principle of a pluralistic and tricameral Parliament for South Africa has been accepted by the Government and, what is more, the official Opposition, despite all their shouting against it and their appeals to the people of South Africa to vote against it, have conceded the point. They will sit in that tricameral Parliament as will the Conservative Party. Despite all their “No” votes, they will sit there and be party to this development of the new political dispensation in South Africa [Interjections.]

What did you vote in 1960?

The hon member for Bryanston will look back into the past and his party and the Conservative Party will try to capitalize on past political prejudice. I think it was the hon member for Yeoville who said, when referring to the CP, that they were yesterday’s men. When the hon member for Bryanston starts to play that kind of politics by referring to the fact that we all voted “no” for the 1961 constitution …

I voted “yes”.

I want to congratulate the hon member. He had a greater perception of a future South Africa than I had at that time.

Order! Is the hon member for Amanzimtoti still debating this Bill?

Mr Speaker, I will come back to the Bill.

The hon member for Walmer said that at some stage it would be necessary for the Government to recognize the need for a common political entity in South Africa. I agree with the hon member. To members on that side of the House I want to say that the time is coming when there will be a need for a common political entity in South Africa. The hon the Prime Minister, in his own great way, when he stood on the border of South Africa with a neighbouring state, indicated that something great was emerging in Southern Africa. We have a vision of the future which we believe will result in a great South Africa, and I believe that the IDC, with its tremendous knowhow and experience in the field of industrial development, will play a great role in this development.

In conclusion I want to say that as this evolves, the NRP will be in the confederation and take part in it as we will in the tricameral Parliament in September of this year. Although this is a very short Bill with only two important clauses, it certainly has engendered an awful lot of discussion on the future economic development of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, if one looks at these minor statutory amendments, it is perhaps advisable to look at what the initial purpose of the Act was as well. In the Act of 1942 one sees that it makes provision for the IDC to establish new industries and to support existing industries. At that stage the primary need in this country was to establish new industries, for no other reason but that we had no industries in the country at that stage and we had to import everything. We were dependent on imports and we saw that our lines of supply from Europe were being threatened by the German submarines. We therefore had no choice. The needs of the country gave rise to the establishment and aims of the Industrial Development Corporation.

Over the years the Industrial Development Corporation was a valuable instrument of the Government of this country in achieving certain goals. The hon member for Walmer requested that we should not involve the IDC in politics. However, that is not a valid request on his part. What has the IDC done? Firstly, there is Sasol. It has never been an economic proposition, particularly not when it was established, since petrol was very cheap then. If I remember correctly petrol cost 2/6 a gallon or even less, in the old monetary terms. I am sure that when Sasol was established there were many people who condemned that decision and said that it was a political decision.

Then the National Party came to power.

When Sasol was established? I wonder whether the hon member is sure of his facts. Perhaps it would be advisable for the hon member to go and make sure of what he is saying. In any case, the IDC has fulfilled the needs of the country over the years.

The needs of the country have changed, however. Today there is no longer the same need for the establishment of new industries. We have plenty of industries. Today the primary need in this country is to provide employment. We therefore see that the object of the legislation is to provide employment. It has a bearing on the provision of employment not only in the Republic, but throughout Southern Africa. Why? The reason is that the employment situation in Southern Africa, including the TBVC countries, has a marked influence on politics and the weal and woe of this country. Many of the hon members in this House were here before me, and I therefore do not have to point out the conditions on the Cape Flats to them. What is that but a manifestation of a lack of employment opportunities in Transkei? There is no other reason for that. The Bill therefore hits the nail on the head when it makes provision for the extension of industries in the TBVC countries with a view to providing employment.

The unemployment problem in this country is one of enormous proportions. I think it would be as well to spell out what this problem entails. At present there are 12 million people seeking employment in this country. By the year 2000 there will be 20 million people available for employment. Today 23% of all Black workers in this country are seeking employment for the first time. Of those who are unemployed 51% are under the age of 30 years. Of these, 51% have been unemployed for longer than six months. We therefore have an extremely explosive situation. What do we have here? We have a combination of young people in the activistic age group under 30, of people who are without employment on a relatively permanent basis—people who have been without employment for longer than six months—and people seeking employment for the first time. The prospects of these people are very bleak. What becomes of one when one does not have employment?

By the year 2000 there will be 20 million people seeking employment, as opposed to the present 12 million. This means that until then we will have to accommodate half a million people seeking employment per annum. How does one do this? Surely it is not simply a case of just giving someone employment. We shall have to address certain problems. We shall have to maintain a growth rate of at least 5%. Compare this with the growth rate of 3,6% between 1970 and 1980. Furthermore, 13 times more Black people will have to be trained for executive posts. There will therefore have to be a vertical movement in the labour force. Over and above the problem of having to train 13 800 Black people annually there is also the problem of making them acceptable to the Whites.

A very disturbing fact is that investment per employment opportunity has recently increased drastically. I want to give an example of this. If we look at the periods 1960 to 1970 and 1970 to 1977 we see that the ratio between investment and employment opportunities created in mining, for example, increased from 1,1:1 to 5,1:1. Another problem is that the provision of employment has not kept abreast of economic growth. In the period 1960 to 1970 we maintained an average growth rate of 6%, whilst there was an increase of 2,8% in the creation of employment opportunities. In the period 1970 to 1977 we had a growth rate of 3,8%, whilst the increase in employment opportunities was only 1,5% then. Measured against the growth rate, the provision of employment therefore decreased from 46% to only 39% of the growth rate.

Let us also look at what the White Paper on the provision of labour has to say. Paragraph 2.17 mentions that even with an economic growth rate of 5% we will not be able to solve the unemployment problem. There are certain reasons for this. I have already mentioned some of these and I shall mention a few others later. When one discusses these matters one must first ask oneself where those employment opportunities must be created and which sectors should be addressed to create employment opportunities.

The first sector that is usually required to provide employment opportunities for Blacks is the primary sector, particularly the agricultural and mining sectors. We could give careful attention to agriculture in particular because there are still more than one million Black workers in that industry today. The capacity of the primary sectors, viz agriculture, mining and forestry, to bring about increased employment in the future seems to be very negative, however.

There are various reasons for this. Due to increased mechanization and the natural resistance of people to do manual labour from morning till night and to get dusty and dirty, we find that people do not like to work in the agrarian and mining sectors. This is one of the reasons why the labour force in agriculture decreased from 2,3 million in 1970 to one million in 1980; ie a decrease of 54% over only 10 years.

One method of combating unemployment amongst Blacks which is advocated by the liberalists is that there must be land reform and that means reform in terms of which agricultural land is transferred from White farmers to Black farmers on a large scale so that they can carry on subsistence farming enterprises. However, the question is whether this is going to relieve the burden of unemployment in the cities. In my opinion, this will not be the case, since the miserable existence that goes with subsistence farming is the one thing that makes everyone flee from the rural areas to the urban areas. In addition, this will mean that like the other countries in Africa we will also have to import food, since those who carry on subsistence farming enterprises will only be able to supply their own needs. Due to our extremely changealbe weather conditions we have to import food if we have only one poor year. For example, at present we have to import maize, but if we should carry on subsistence farming enterprises, the least change in the weather conditions would result in a shortage of food in the country, and that is un doudtedly not in the interests of the workers or our country.

In mining we find that the proportion of money spent on creating employment opportunities between 1970 and 1977 in comparison with the period 1960 to 1970 increased from 1,1:1 to 5, 1:1. In other words, we find that the possibility for creating additional employment is going to be very slight, since we are dealing here with a dwindling asset. The only sector in mining of which the extent can really increase drastically, is the coal industry. This industry is becoming increasingly mechanized, however, and is increasingly turning to open mining where the most extreme forms of mechanization are used and manual labour is therefore limited.

With a view to the above-mentioned arguments it is clear that we have to create employment opportunities in the secondary and tertiary sectors. Having said that, it inevitably follows that Blacks will have to become urbanised, and when that happens we are back with this legislation. Provision is made in this Bill for the IDC to create employment in the independent Black states. If I remember correctly, the hon member for Langlaagte recently objected to the fact that the Development Bank of Southern Africa, which, inter alia, will provide money for development in the TBVC countries, has to spend money in those areas. Yet the hon member for Brakpan said in the same debate that he agreed that development should take place in the independent Black states and in the homelands. When I was in my constituency recently, a good friend of mine, who is a member of the CP, said to me: “You are probably in a hurry to get back to Cape Town so that you can go and give away even more.” Does the CP agree with me that we cannot effect land reform, that we cannot allocate land for the purposes of subsistence farming? Do they also agree that relatively speaking, the mines are going to need increasingly less labour for expansion? If they agree with that, they must tell me whether they agree that industries should developed in the independent Black states as well so that urbanization can take place there, too. Or do they think that in pleading for this we are giving away the country’s money?

I hear you are going to sell your land.

Mr Speaker, the hon member who is now claiming that he has heard that I am going to sell my land obviously has a hearing problem. We all know that. [Interjections.]

As I have already said, the present economic situation requires planning to provide employment for the entire South African population. I have also referred to the problems we have experienced here on the Cape Flats. However, I must say that I was quite alarmed about the attitude of those we look to to provide employment for people in South Africa. I am referring to big business. The private sector has clearly given us to understand that the Government must govern the country, whilst they will see to it that employment opportunities are made available. I question this pronouncement by the private sector. I also question the motives of those who make such a fuss about their so-called social conscience. I shall explain to hon members why I question this.

During the previous Parliamentary recess I visited a certain area in our country where a company with major overseas interests has an extensive farming enterprise. When I took a closer look at the place I saw the remains of literally hundreds of Black villages which had simply been broken down. On inquiry I was told that people had, in fact, lived in those villages until recently. When I asked why they do not introduce a certain kind of product there, I ascertained the following interesting facts. Due to that undertaking’s overseas interests it wants to pay its workers a high wage so that it can say that although it is a South African undertaking, it nevertheless complies with the Sullivan Code. What happened there, however? That undertaking did away with its intensive farming enterprise, for which it needed intensive labour, and set up other farming activities in its place, for which it required very little labour, of course, so that the undertaking could improve its expenditure on labour. In the process 80% of the people who formerly lived and worked there were driven off the land because they had become redundant. Now I ask whether this is the conduct of people who have a very keen social conscience? Are these people on whom we can rely to provide our people with employment opportunities on which the security of our country can be built?

Mr Speaker, I want to explain this specific aspect a little further, in order to illustrate more clearly why the IDC is so essential to us. When we take note of what has happened over the past decade, and particularly during the past two years, we have no choice but to be extremely perturbed about the state of affairs in our economy. What has happened during this period? During the period concerned, we have experienced an unprecedented phase of takeovers and the concentration of financial power in the hands of a few people. This can by no means be economically healthy for the Republic. As the hon member Dr Welgemoed indicated yesterday, the three major interest groups own 73% of the interests on South Africa’s stock market at present. If that is not bad enough, this concentration has increased by 4% from 69,3% to 73,3% in one year.

The consumer trade in South Africa is controlled by five large companies. Here in the Western Cape we have one of the largest providers of employment; the so-called “rag trade”. This is the most intensive method of providing employment, and it is controlled almost exclusively by one man. What kind of trend is to be seen here? The real trend is not to begin new business undertakings, but simply to take over existing business undertakings so that competition between the various producers and suppliers can be done away with. This does not necessarily lead to savings, since I can assure you on the basis of my experience acquired in the business world that one eventually finds that the overhead costs are such that they no longer compensate for rationalization.

This brings me back to paragraph 2.17 of the White Paper on the provision of labour which states that economic growth of 5% alone cannot solve our unemployment problem. It points out that in some countries 42% of employment takes place in the informal section. This Bill specifically makes provision for money to be loaned to individuals. This makes provision for the creation of an entrepreneurial class in the other groups of colour in our country and in the independent states. What are the advantages of this? Why does this legislation want to create this situation? Why must an entrepreneurial class be created amongst people of colour? I should like to spell this out to you.

The creation of a Black entrepreneurial class will promote healthy competition, since these new entrepreneurs will find it very difficult to embrace the big business amongst the Whites. They fight to get to the top. The one lot of people resign themselves to what they have, and the others strive to get to the top. The Black entrepreneur will also be able to mobilize the so-called “sweat capital” of the Blacks much easier than the Whites could, since in the case of Black industrialists one does not have the bad connotation of the White employer trampling on the Black employee. One would therefore be able to mobilize the “sweat capital” of people of colour much better. With the passage of time we will certainly have to adjust certain laws, but the fact remains that we will have to be able to mobilize the “sweat capital” of people of colour.

The attainability of a growth rate of approximately 5% per annum that is needed to provide employment for all those seeking employment is based on the assumption that the domestic market will have to absorb 75% of the production of the manufacturing sector, whilst the remaining 25%—ie R18 billion by the year 2000—will have to be exported. We will not be able to export if the costs of our inputs are not lower than those of the other exporting nations. I therefore want to reiterate that it is essential that we are able to mobilize the “sweat capital” of the Black workers, and we can only do so through industrialists of colour.

Since this new industrial corps will have limited capital they will not easily be able to invest in mechanization, or even in automation. This will have a very favourable influence on the ratio between the creation of labour and economic growth, since, as I have already indicated, this ration has become considerably worse recently due to the very fact that the poor connotation of the White employer who tramples on the Black worker has resulted in the Whites mechanizing to an increasing extent in order to get away from the problem of the Black labour force.

Are you speaking on behalf of Frankfort as well?

Mr Speaker, I do not know whether or not I should tell the hon member that I am speaking on behalf of Frankfort. I want to tell him, however, that I am, in fact, speaking on behalf of this country, the Republic of South Africa. The hon member for Rissik can quote every word I say.

Would you tell that story in the heart of the Free State?

I shall let the hon member have a copy of my speech and he can publish it wherever he wishes in the Free State. [Interjections.] He need not only publish it, but, as is his custom, he can gossip about it as well.

A further point concerning why it is beneficial to have people of colour providing work in this country is that it will be much more difficult for overseas countries to establish a rationale for boycott campaigns against the Republic, since if there are Black entrepreneurs who produce goods by using Black workers, what would the rationale be behind boycotting overseas the goods manufactured by Black workers?

Another point is the question of the tremendously high concentration of money in the hands of a very limited circle of Whites. If that concentration is such that we are afraid of it today, what is the concentration of money in the hands of the Whites going to look like by the year 2000 when the Whites will constitute only 12% of the population of the country? Does one realize what a tremendous concentration there will be in the hands of a few people if we do not get other people and new entrepreneurs into the field? As I have indicated, the trend nowadays is that existing entrepreneurs and industrialists buy up the new undertakings, as well as other business undertakings, so that the financial power becomes increasing concentrated in the hands of a few.

Another point is that the politicization of the Black trade unions in particular is being curtailed completely by creating a Black entrepreneurial class. This will normalize the situation, since Black workers will no longer be able to use a Black trade union to place the employer under pressure simply because they want to achieve certain political goals. Let us look at what the Black people themselves have to say. At the time of the Black Forum held last year at Hammanskraal, the speakers all agreed that the struggle was concerned with destroying the White-con trolled capitalistic system together with their Black pawn-workers. By creating a Black entrepreneurial class we will succeed in incorporating a very important component in our struggle against communism, which will increase our defensibility tremendously. Moreover, by creating such an entrepreneurial class a mechanism will be created by means of which the search of Black leadership elements can be satisfied and can be channelled to make a positive contribution so that these people will not be largely intent on negative leadership possibilities such as stirring up and working towards revolution, as is the case at present.

Mr Speaker, when I moved that the Bill be read a Second Time, I never dreamed that hon members would raise so many different aspects during this discussion. It reminded me of my former profession, where it often happens that a man begins by preparing a sermon and only finds a text for it afterwards. [Interjections.] I got the impression that many hon members had their sermons ready and then found a useful pretext for delivering them when this amending Bill dealing with the IDC was introduced.

†In the first instance I should like to thank the hon member for Walmer for his support and that of his party. I must admit that that is about the only kind thing I can say about his speech, because what he said yesterday was not very friendly. I think unlike what one can expect from him his speech was bitter; it was an unnecessary speech. It was certainly undeserving as far as the IDC is concerned. He cast suspicion in regard to mismanagement in the IDC. He gave an exposition regarding three companies whose names I want to refer to for the purposes of the record. [Interjections.] The point is that he mentioned the three companies, namely Thrustor Manufacturing Industries, Thrustor Industrial Products and Thrustor (Pty) Ltd and then gave a lengthy exposition of how these companies had been mismanaged. Eventually he made the statement that it was a swindle and left the impression that the IDC could become involved in similar activities. I want to tell the House today that the IDC has not financed any of these three companies.

I said so.

He said it in such a way that even the hon member Dr Welgemoed replied by saying that it was possible for any organization to make investments that could go sour. Why did the hon member raise the matter here? Why did he raise it under a Bill dealing with IDC?

*It is a pity that the hon member wanted to sow suspicion I do not know why he wanted to do that. The IDC is a body which finances many industries in South Africa. In that respect, its activities are similar to those of a bank, and it is necessary that there should be the maximum degree of confidence in that insitution and in its activities. Since this is the case, why does the hon member wish to cast a reflection, no matter how slight, on the activities of the IDC?

The IDC has an excellent record. I want to refer to it briefly. Although the State has appropriated funds to the IDC over the years to undertake specific projects on behalf of the State, the IDC has been self-sufficient with regard to the financing of its normal activities since 1954.

†The R470 million required by the IDC during the 1983 financial year to finance its requirements, was financed as follows: Seventy per cent from own financial resources, namely repayments on loans, and profits, 24% from bank loans and only 6% from new equity. What is more, the IDC has an excellent profit record. Its performance during past years has been outstanding. Profits increased from approximately R15 million in 1974 to R82 million in 1983, an excellent record indeed. I think the hon member owes the IDC an apology for the undeserving criticism he has levelled at it.

He said, and I quote his words: “The IDC has lost his way”. He also insinuated that the IDC was involved in ideological exercises. He said:

*This is a serious charge. When one examines the objectives of the IDC, one sees that it operates strictly in accordance with its original objectives.

†In the annual report the hon member will find the objectives of the IDC on the first page, and I would like to read them to the hon member, as follows:

That is exactly what the IDC is still doing. What the hon member is really trying to get at, is the policy of regional development. He said so. He has an ideological hangup and tries to blame this Government for being ideological. The hon member went further. He was quoted in an article in Business Post of 3 March 1984. This is apparently a publication in the Eastern Cape. He referred to decentralization and regional development as “grand apartheid under the guise of regional development”. He is of course only echoing the sentiments of one of the leaders in that party who calls decentralization policies ludicrous. That is, of course, the hon member for Houghton who said it in a speech she made not too long ago. I want to discuss the question of decentralization for a moment.

The committee appointed to advise the Government on industrial development strategy—a very high level and influential committee—made certain recommendations on regional development. Before I refer to one or two of their recommendations, I would like to inform the House of the standing of this committee which was under chairmanship of Dr Kleu the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries. The other members of the committee include Dr S S Brand who is now the chief executive of the Development Bank; Mr A J M de Vries, who is attached to the Bureau of Economic Research at the University of Stellenbosch which is an institution with very high standing; Mr A Hammond-Tooke, economist of the South African Federated Chamber of Industries; Mr A J Jacobsz, at that time economist of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and now economist of Volkskas; Dr C L McCarthy, Department of Economics of the University of Stellenbosch; Dr J C Van Zyl, executive director of the Federated Chamber of Indus ties, and a few other members. This was an outstanding committee, and on regional development this committee came out very strongly in favour of a better spread of economic development in this country, not for ideological reasons but for sound economic reasons. They state in paragraph 10.10 of their report:

The study group went on to say:

*For ideological reasons, the hon member does not like the policy of regional development and decentralization, and that is why he is trying to shoot down the policy by calling it ideological. However, the ideology is not to be found on this side of the House. I thought that we could at least achieve consensus with regard to economic development in South Africa and that we would try to keep it out of the political arena. However, the hon member’s standpoint on regional development simply reflects the attitude of his party. The PFP is an urban party which is insensitive to the needs of those areas in South Africa which have not kept pace with the development elsewhere. [Interjections.] It is a party which does not understand the problems of the rural areas. It is a party which centres around an urban elite, and for that reason, probably because of other interests, it is not in favour of a sound policy of regional development.

It is interesting to note that South Africa is not the only country which is following a policy of regional development. As recently as December 1983, the British Government published a White Paper entitled Regional Industrial Development.

†It was tabled on 14 December 1983 and it is very interesting to read what they have to say about regional development. I want to quote a few brief passages from this White Paper. On page 1—this is not the South African Government but the British Government—they say the following:

I want to quote from paragraph 16 of the White Paper. Before I do that, I should just perhaps return to the hon member for Houghton: Her main objection to decentralization or regional development is set out as follows in a report of a speech I have here:

I shall leave it at that. Certainly, apart from economic grounds, there are other grounds as well. In the light of what she has said, it is interesting to read what the British Government has to say on this subject. I quote from paragraph 16 of the White Paper:

That ties in with the arguments we have heeded in drawing up a regional policy for South Africa. In the manual published, as in the White Paper, it is clearly stated that the regional policy devised for South Africa was based on three criteria, the first being:

It is obvious that regional development has a sound economic basis, apart from other objectives. Money spent in this way is money well spent. That applies not only to South Africa but also to other parts of the world. The British Government mentions in this White Paper that:

That is far more than we have spent in this country, and the British Government did not spend that for ideological reasons, but for sound economic reasons. The policy of regional development therefore rests on a very sound foundation.

*Now the hon member suggests, on the basis of all kinds of speculations, that a large amount of money is being wasted because industries are simply being moved from metropolitan areas to regional areas, to industrial development points. He submits that no new jobs are being created and that it is a waste of money. The Decentralization Board has ascertained that from April 1982 up to 31 December last year, ie over the first 18 months, only 18% of the approved applications consisted of removals, and that the removals that were approved involved a projected subsidy figure of only R29 million. Where are the large amounts that are simply being wasted on removals?

The policy is aimed in particular at the creation of new capacity and new jobs. Ultimately, the policy is intended to create a potential for growth in the respective areas, so that the agglomeration effect itself will contribute to further industrial development in those areas. In addition, the industrial development points have been chosen as far as possible on the basis of their economic viability. It may interest the House to know that in the first 18 months, ie up to 31 December last year, 102 applications from abroad were approved, with a capital investment of R200 million and the creation of jobs for 23 000 people. It is surprising that people from abroad should have enough confidence in South Africa and in this policy to invest their money here and to help develop this country, while we find that people within our own ranks do not always have the confidence and do not always contribute to a spirit of confidence which is so necessary to give further impetus to development in South Africa.

The hon member made a further interesting remark. The hon member for Amanzimtoti referred to this, and I just want to react to it briefly. It appears to me that the hon member regards economic co-operation and interdependence simply as an essential condition for political unity and co-operation. Let us examine for a moment the statement which the hon member made yesterday. He was talking about interdependence and co-operation in Southern Africa and about the relationship between South Africa and the TBVC countries. He referred to the relationship of close interdependence and of economic co-operation, and then he went on to say:

[Inaudible.]

The hon member makes a further admission in this regard. He admits that the TBVC countries are economically so dependent on South Africa that one cannot for one moment regard them as separate political entities. Surely the same applies to the BLS countries. Are the roads and the railway network of South Africa not the lifeblood of the BLS countries? Do we not belong to the same customs union? Is the customs revenue not the biggest source of revenue for most of those countries? Do their labourers not work in South Africa? Is the South African market not a market for their products? Do they not get much better value for their money when they buy from South Africa? Do they not use our harbours to send their exports abroad? When we talk about economic interdependence and co-operation, these things apply to the BLS countries as well. When the hon member says that economic dependence implies political unity, surely the same must apply to the BLS countries.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether land tenure in the independent national states is a political or economic problem, or both? I would suggest it certainly has a political aspect. If it has a political aspect, does it concern us?

The independent countries are independent to decide their own issues, whether they are the BLS or the TBVC countries. Let me must complete this argument. When economic co-operation takes place between South Africa and Mozambique or the BLS countries, then people talk of the interdependence of the region. However, when economic co-operation takes place between South Africa and the TBVC countries, then they say it is part of a political unit. [Interjections:]

*Sir, we often find on that side of the House that when it is a question of the independence of Botswana, Lesotho or Swaziland, no one asks any questions, not about the way they became independent either. But what happened? Before the Union of South Africa came into being, the protectorates, as they were at that time—Bechuana-land, Basutoland and Swaziland—were given the choice of being incorporated into the Union of South Africa, or of preserving their status as protectorates, self-governing entities, under the British Government. From that status, the status of self-government, they eventually grew to independence. This is acceptable to hon members of the Opposition and to the world. But when nations are afforded the opportunity of becoming independent in the same way in South Africa, it is not acceptable.

It is not being done in the same way.

It is not being done in the same way, for in the case of the protectorates, no elections were held to decide whether they wanted to be incorporated into the Union or to stay as they were. Hon members find it easy to talk about a political entity, and in doing so, they suggest that the problems have simply disappeared. If the Government in South Africa had to argue on that basis, we would completely destroy our economic order and stability.

Now I wish to come to the IDC and to make a few remarks about it. The fact is that this corporation is not ideologically orientated, but that it promotes economic development in South Africa—and this is also my reply to the hon member for Sunnyside— within the framework of our regional development policy as well. It is one of the instruments used for promoting economic development and progress in South Africa. There are other instruments as well, including the Development Bank of Southern Africa and other financial institutions. Furthermore, the package of incentives for the industrial development points was specifically designed to enable private capital to be mobilized as well.

The IDC acts according to sound business principles, therefore, in order to serve the country’s economic interests in the best possible way and to promote regional development. Several speakers on this side of the House have pointed out that it is to everyone’s advantage that economic development in South Africa should be as broadly based as possible. The ICD has made a great and valuable contribution to industrial development in South Africa. However, the principal task of the IDC remains to provide long-term financing to the private sector, and over the past three years, the IDC has granted considerable amounts in this connection. I may just mention, for the information of hon members, that R238 million was granted in this way by the IDC in 1981, R458 million in 1982, and R304 million in 1983. On 30 June 1983, the total industrial financing by the IDC amounted to R1,7 billion.

The IDC administers the financing of the RSA’s exportation of capital goods. The hon member Dr Welgemoed also referred to this in his very interesting speech on the IDC. Payments in this connection amount to more than R100 million a year, and on 30 June 1983, the total amount still outstanding was R402 million. This will eventually be redeemed, of course. The total financing of industrial activities by the IDC amounts to R2,1 billion, therefore.

This Bill proposes two simple administrative amendments in order to enable the IDC to perform its functions more effectively. In the first place, it is the intention to remedy a deficiency which exists in the principal Act in order to enable the IDC to continue its activities in national states after they have received their independence from South Africa. The fact is, as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, that what happens at the moment is that the IDC gets involved in activities in national Black states, and when those states eventually become independent, the IDC is not authorized by law to continue its activities in those states. This restricts and hampers the activities of the IDC and leads to all kinds of problems. A practical example of this is the fact that the IDC is not authorized at this stage to provide any further funds to its existing subsidiary, namely Sape-co in Venda. If the hon member says that Sapeco is an ideological project, I should like to take him there, so that he may see for himself what is being done there in the field of tea and coffee production.

The purpose of the second amendment is to remedy another deficiency, by enabling the IDC to make funds available to individuals and partnerships as well. The IDC is also involved in the provision of housing for industrialists at industrial development points. In terms of the present legislation, the IDC is unable to render assistance to an industrialist in this respect if his undertaking is situated in a national Black state. The IDC cannot even help him to provide housing outside that national Black state. In other words, an industrialist who invests in Bophuthatswana and who wants his key personnel to live in Rustenburg cannot be helped by the IDC at the moment. It is only in order to remedy these two deficiencies, one could say, that we have introduced this amending Bill.

Finally, I should like to reply briefly to a few questions that have been put by hon members. The hon member Dr Welgemoed asked some questions in connection with ISB and NSB, and pointed out that the ordinary man should also be given the opportunity of participating in investments. It is in fact the object of ISB and NSB, which are both listed on the Stock Exchange, to enable the ordinary investor to obtain a share in the various industrial facilities by way of participating in the investment portfolios available. The hon member also asked a question in connection with the R1 200 million which the IDC is budgeting for over the next three years, and he wanted to know how it would be used. In response to my inquiry, the IDC told me that this was the amount they envisaged at the moment as being necessary to meet their normal financial obligations. The hon member is naturally familiar with the procedure according to which industrial enterprises may apply to the IDC for aid. The project is evaluated, and if it is found to have merit, the IDC is always prepared to get involved in it. I thank the hon member once again for his very informative and stimulating contribution on the activities of the IDC, and also for his kind words to the corporation and its employees.

The hon member for Sunnyside said that he had problems with regard to clause 3. The hon member for Sunnyside, like so many of us who do not have a legal background, sometimes finds it rather difficult to understand legislation. However, the hon member need not feel concerned about the problem which he raised. The two separate components of clause 3 are very closely interrelated. If I may explain it to the hon member as follows, it will become quite clear to him, as it has to me, and he will see, too, that there is a close connection between the two components. In terms of clause 3, the corporation may (a) to a certain end, and (b) with the concurrence of the Minister, enter into an agreement and perform certain acts. The legal draftsmen tell me that these two conditions are interrelated. It is not possible to comply with one, but not with the other. Therefore the IDC must comply with both conditions before getting involved in activities of this nature.

Mr Speaker, my law adviser, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, just wants to have a quick look at the Bill to see whether I am right. [Interjections.]

I believe I have replied to the questions put by the hon member for Sunnyside in connection with the Government’s intentions regarding regional development and the function performed in this connection by the IDC. The hon member Dr Odendaal also explained quite clearly what the purpose of the legislation was, and I thank him for emphasizing the fact that in order to make the best possible use of the resources of South Africa, it is essential that we give attention to regional development. We shall never be able to do full justice to the development potential of South Africa if we do not undertake stimulating projects of this nature.

†The hon member for Amanzimtoti commented on the fact that this amending Bill provided encouragement for the individual entrepreneur. He also challenged the hon member for Walmer in the political field. I should rather not go into his remarks in that respect. He only said he was very delighted to see that the NP was almost accepting the NRP’s concept of a confederation. I think it is more likely that the opposite is true. I have the impression that the NRP is moving closer to the NP’s concept of a confederation. [Interjections.] There are of course many people who do not understand that a confederation can only come about on the basis of constitutionally independent units. That is where the hon member for Pinelands and his party go entirely astray. [Interjections.] Be that as it may, however, I thank the hon member for Amanzimtoti and his party for their support of this Bill.

*The hon member for Heilbron mentioned many matters which one would have liked to comment on if there had been more time. I just want to thank the hon member for the emphasis he placed on the need for the creation of jobs for the rapidly growing labour force in South Africa. This is indeed one of the biggest challenges with which we are faced, for if we cannot create enough jobs, we shall not experience the economic growth and we shall not be able to create the economic well-being which would make South Africa a stable and prosperous country. For this reason, it is essential that job opportunities should be taken to where the people are, to contribute, not only to a better distribution of economic activity, but also to the creation of happier and healthier economic communities.

May I please ask a question? I should like to ask the hon the Minister to explain to us what he means by a constitutionally independent state.

Certainly, sir. Independence is a relative concept because we are all interdependent. Not even the USA which is a major power in the world is entirely independent. However, there is also independence in the sense that one can decide one’s own affairs and that one has the basis for political decision-making. That leaves room to express one’s own identity through the framework provided by one’s constitution.

Self-government?

Self-government certainly. The basis of the independence of an independent country is its ability to govern itself. That is the absolute minimum and it goes beyond that. However, I can see that the hon member has very little fault to find with our point of view.

*I also want to thank the hon member for Heilbron for the exposition he gave us with regard to the job opportunities that would be created.

I want to conclude with one final remark, and that is that it is encouraging to find that even in a period of economic recession, the policy of regional and industrial development in South Africa has remained so vigorous. To me, this indicates that a development process has been initiated in South Africa which it will not be easy to stop. Naturally, there are problems that will have to be dealt with, and in this connection I am thinking of inflation and other problems. The Government is doing so. However, we want to contribute to the creation of a healthy climate, a climate of confidence, in which this development may gain momentum and may expand to make South Africa a bigger and stronger giant in Southern Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 56:

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon the Minister for his reassurance that the IDC will abide strictly by the Act in terms of which it was set up and that all that is now going to happen is that it will extend its area of operation to include the independent states that previously were part of the Republic of South Africa.

I think that the hon the Minister must agree with me if he rereads the speeches of some of his colleagues that they were quite as confused as hon members on this side of the House were regarding the purpose for which the IDC could possibly be used. We have had a wonderful example of “strooi-poppe opsit en weer afskiet”. The hon the Minister himself said that I criticized the IDC, and then the quotation that he read out from my speech was that I gravely feared—I forget the exact words—that the Government was misleading the IDC and taking them into area where they were not originally supposed to operate. That really is a criticism of himself and the Government or a fear that the Government and he himself might be open to criticism and not the IDC. The point that I went on to make was that one should keep one’s goals clear for an organization like the IDC and within those goals it actually had a proud record. There must now be no confusion of the issue.

The hon member Dr Odendaal suggested that I was of the opinion that industry must not be moved from the PWV area. I should like to know when that was said. I have never ever stated that that was an area where industrial development should be encouraged. I believe there is an argument for decentralization, but it must be done for economic reasons on sound economic bases and my fear is that it is not being done on those bases.

Let us take the speech of the hon member for Heilbron. He analysed one side of the problem extremely well. He described how there were 12 million workers and by the year 2000 there would be 20 million workers. He pointed to the problems of creating work for those people and he went on to say that this meant there was an absolute necessity for decentralization of industries. The other side of the problem is this: Where do the resources come from?

We blithely speak of growth rates in the GDP, of 5%, but I ask the hon the Minister what it has been over the last four years. It has been 1,1% over the last four years. So, to speak of 5% is probably totally unrealistic. The inputs that we require to create the kind of growth in GDP that will supply these 20 million people by the year 2000 with work opportunities are immense. We do not have a single rand to spare, and to embark upon a decentralization programme like the one we have with the scale of incentives that we have will mean that we just do not reach that objective. We cannot achieve those growth rates. We have to make every decision correctly; there is no room for mistakes and there is no cost benefit study that has even yet been done of this policy.

If one reads the Kleu report carefully which talks about the necessity of creating jobs for all these people, one notices that the report also points to the shortages in the factors of production that can prevent this. Primarily this is likely to be capital. He pinpoints the sources from which we must get that capital; it must come from export. So, what do we do? We set about making ourselves completely uncompetitive by a system of incentives “wat heeltemal buitensporig is”. Ons kan dit nie bekostig nie. I think there lies the rub.

If the PWV area is either fully developed or in danger of becoming overconcentrated over the next 20 years, it makes sense to encourage people to move elsewhere, but to have a graded system whereby the most unsuitable industrial area gets the biggest incentive is to establish one’s industries where they should not be. From our point of view this is not an ideological argument; we would love to see it brought into the field of economics out on that basis.

Those are our concerns. We accept the fact that the hon the Minister has assured us that the IDC will operate according to its original charter and we welcome that.

Mr Speaker, I am very glad that the debate has apparently cleared up some misunderstandings and confusion that existed. The hon member for Walmer has again raised the question of the policy of regional development. I have dealt with it at length and I think we should take it further during the discussion of my Vote. He made a number of valid points, and I do not disagree with him that we do in fact face major problems in respect of training and the creation of jobs. This is certainly very true, and we must follow the policy which will eventually enable us to achieve those objectives. However, I disagree with the hon member that the policy of regional development and growth points is contrary to those objectives. The hon member talks about massive incentives and criticized the remark in the annual report of the IDC where there is a comparison between the R600 million or R700 million which is annually being provided for urban transport subsidies and the R120 million which is provided for decentralization incentives. We must get our priorities right if we want to become an export nation. We will have to export from our harbours, while at the moment all our industrial activity is up in the north. We must try to restructure economically in South Africa. We must do that by creating the incentives that will eventually encourage industry to change around. At the moment, with the major markets up in the north, it is hardly possible that industries will settle on the coast. We have to create an export awareness. I do not want to go into the details now, but we certainly do provide a large sum for export incentives in various ways. There are many subsidies given by the Government, and the only argument raised in the report is that R120 million, as compared to between R600 million and R700 million which mainly goes to the urban areas and is not productive either, is a small sum to spend on restructuring industrial development in this country. However, I do not want to take this matter any further. I thank the hon member for his support and leave the matter there.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

When the Small Business Development Act, 1981—Act 112 of 1981—was passed, the intention was that the Small Business Development Corporation, which is a registered company in terms of the Companies Act, 1973, should take over all assets which were at that stage the property of the Development and Finance Corporation and the Indian Indüstrial Development Corporation, without payment of transfer duty, stamp duty, etc. These assets were in fact, taken over on 1 December 1981.

†However, the Small Business Development Act, 1981, does not provide for the transfer of the assets of subsidiaries of the Development and Finance Corporation and of the Indian Industrial Development Corporation, to the Small Business Development Corporation and likewise does not provide for the non-payment of transfer duty etc in the event of such a transfer. The proposed amendment to the Small Business Development Act, 1981, will bring this matter into line. Hon members will also note that the provisions of the Bill have been made applicable with retrospective effect from 1 December 1981. The reason for this is obvious, namely that it is only logical that the date of transfer of the assets of the subsidiaries of the aforementioned corporations must correspond with the date of transfer of the assets of the corporations themselves.

*Mr Speaker, this Bill is very short and clear and I do not think any further elucidation is necessary.

Mr Speaker, it is perhaps suitable that this Bill be laid upon the Table at this time. I am not quite sure, but I do believe that the Small Business Development Corporation had its annual general meeting yesterday. The idea was mooted that Dr Anton Rupert would declare the corporation’s first dividend at that meeting. I have looked at the Press but whether it was done or not, I do not know.

The SBDC is experiencing an increasing demand at this stage for the services and facilities which it offers. It has assisted more than 1 000 clients with financing totalling R35 million, and it has indemnified more than 400 other facilities to the extent of R8 million. It also owns more than 130 development projects. However, this corporation also has another function which can be called an educational function; that is, getting the Government to remove certain restrictive practices with particular reference to the informal sector. We hope it will be successful in getting the Government to “loosen up” in this particular area.

As it is, the informal sector operates to very large extent illegally. I believe all informal sectors do so. They do not honour all the requirements that big established businesses do. They use illegal labour and do all sorts of things that have been anathema to this Government until now. However, if there is to be an informal sector and it is to be active, one must expect it to be informal. Probably the first place where the Government is being put to the test over the question of whether it is sincere about the informal sector is that of Black taxi’s. One must not slide away from that issue. Here one sees informal business with all the embarrassment that it can cause to structured, formal business. Nevertheless one sees it operating with vigour and entrepreneurial drive and profitability and performing a useful function. One must be very careful not simply to pay lip service to this concept of the promotion of the informal sector. It may cause us a lot of embarrassment but it can also do us a lot of good. Nothing can create employment like the small business sector but it must not be stamped on because it does not, for example, have the correct amount of floor space in square metres or window space or is not paying the correct labour rates.

It has been reported to me that the small business information offices are being closed down. Perhaps the hon the Minister can tell us something about this in his reply. If it is correct, how many of these advice offices have been closed and what provision is being made for the staff operating these advice offices?

As colour prejudice fades, Whites are increasingly aware that what they really seek is a standard in their society. It must be an acceptable standard where their own values, which they have come to regard as normal, can obtain. An increasing proportion of the population understands that the key to this is participation and sharing, and that exclusion or domination in a society with a composition such as ours is actually a recipe for disaster. I suppose that all societies advance in a stop-start fashion with those at the back crying “Forward!” and those at the front crying “back!” Nevertheless, there is such a thing as a nation’s conscious and subconscious. I believe that this nation, in the depths of its subconscious, is aware that our salvation in the long term lies in sharing. Although our progress is marked by many a backward step and much hypocrisy, as we saw when an hon Deputy Minister last week attempted to justify a Bill which makes of second-class South Africans second-class foreigners, in some cases we do make progress. The Small Business Development Corporation is proof that there is an awareness that we cannot remain a nation of haves and have-nots but that opportunity and wealth must be distributed by some criteria more justifiable than the pigment of a man’s skin.

We do not like our medicine and drink it reluctantly, but I believe that slowly we are coming to terms with the situation. The SBDC is carrying out the objective of involvement of all population groups in the free enterprise system, but it has an extremely difficult job. It cannot just say to people: “Okay, you chaps in the Third World: Come with us; we will teach you how to get a toe-hold in the free enterprise system.”. It has the almost impossible task of guiding them through a minefield of impediments specifically designed to keep them out of the system. This minefield was designed with cunning and ruthlessness. It still lies today, as it was laid, fused and ready to go off if the unwary stand where they should not stand, and it is doing its job of keeping people out of the free enterprise system, people of colour. The paths through this minefield are tortuous and dangerous, and executives of organizations like the SBDC and the Urban Foundation are skilled guides past the hazards of section 10 rights, the Groups Areas Act, trading rights in central business districts, influx control legislation and a host of other similar obstacles.

When SBDC took over the assets of the Development and Financial Corporation and the Indian Industrial Development Corporation, a portion of these assets was in the form of shares in a proliferation of subsidiary companies. These companies were all of a property-owning nature and their purpose was to lease work premises to budding entrepreneurs, normally at reasonable rentals or favourable rentals. It follows that these companies were not very profitable or may even have shown losses. These losses were not an indication of bad administration but rather of the form in which positive assistance was given to entrepreneurs by way of advantageous rentals. The SBDC is now left with an administrative headache. It has under it a host of small property-owning subsidiary companies, none of which has or requires any staff, but all of which have a complete set of books, a board of directors, audit and accounting requirements and public offices— they really represent quite a nuisance. In the interests of sound management, the SBDC wishes to dispense with this clutter of small companies and to take transfer of their physical assets together with their rights, liabilities and obligations, if I understand it correctly.

It is then the purpose of the SBDC to decentralize control of these properties to the three regional offices which are established in Transvaal, Cape Town and Durban. These properties are in any event maintained for the SBDC by these regional offices. Leasing of premises and maintaining relationships with tenant entrepreneurs are functions more effectively handled by regional offices than they could ever be handled centrally from Johannesburg. It makes no sense for a complex of buildings in the West Cape, for example, to be administered from Johannesburg. It can be administered far more easily from Cape Town. The Bill before the House will therefore succeed in getting assets under the name of the SBDC by sensible statutory action and will avoid the cumbersome, expensive and unnecessary procedure of transferring the properties through the Deeds Office. I have one concern however. If there are any assessed losses in this multitude of small subsidiary companies it would be a great pity to see those losses lost to the Small Business Development Corporation. I do not know whether they can be transferred legally, but I believe one should try to make provision to see that they do not lose that asset. I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I cannot find much fault with the speech of the hon member for Walmer, except to say that apparently he and I have a bit of a language problem. It is also a pity that he tried to lend a political colour to the discussion of this Bill. Why do I say that we have a language problem? During the discussion of the previous Bill I pointed out that it was difficult to achieve a growth rate of 5%, whilst the hon member said that I spoke “glibly” of a growth rate of 5%. There are probably other aspects about which we misunderstood one another as well as a result of the language problem. I assume that I, too, misunderstood a little of what he said.

On the face of it this legislation looks like ordinary legislation to tie up loose ends and to normalize certain matters, yet it is an exceptional example of how the laws of the land have to be adjusted to adapt to changing circumstances. The initial legislation in this regard was the Coloured Development Corporation Act, Act 4 of 1962. That legislation dealt with the promotion of Coloured affairs and industries. A directorate was appointed—it was not stated that Coloureds should not serve on it—and the company had to assist people living in Coloured areas. Later we acquired a similar development corporation which had to see to the interests of Indians. However, there was a shift in emphasis, one could almost say an evolution. It was determined that at least half of the directors had to be Indians. There was a further devolution of the State’s powers as well, in that two kinds of shares were issued, in contrast with the earlier case when only one kind of share was issued only to the State. Whereas all shares were held by the State previously, we now find that R1 million worth of A shares and R2 million worth of B shares were issued to the State, and that the latter shares could only be disposed of to Indians.

If we go further, we come to the Coloured Development Corporation Amendment Act, Act 33 of 1978, and we find a further evolution. The provision that these people could only trade and be assisted in Coloured areas was removed from this legislation. If I remember correctly, this alteration was effected on 15 March 1978, during the previous hon Prime Minister’s time. The point is therefore that it has clearly been conceded that there was no question of our having considered the possibility of a separate Coloured homeland. Why was the legislation deliberately altered at that stage to the effect that assistance would not only apply with regard to Coloured areas?

Both these laws were consolidated in a new Act in 1981, Act 33 of 1981. I have a few problems with regard to this legislation and I would be grateful if the hon the Minister could reply to my questions in this respect. In all the previous laws on the corporation the appointment of directors and the nature of the share-capital was spelt out, whilst this is not done in this case. I would be pleased if the hon the Minister would clarify this matter for us.

This legislation is analogous to the previous legislation in the sense that it is clear that the whole State machinery is geared towards small business being developed with a view to creating employment opportunities. The informal sector must also be given attention so that we can provide these people with the necessary funds for development. As I have already indicated, there are great possibilities for providing employment in the informal sector.

In conclusion, I want to ask the hon the Minister to ascertain whether it would not be possible for certain people who serve in the Small Business Development Corporation to become involved in the sector in which the State allocates tenders. They could then give the small businessman guidance as to how tender quotations should be drawn up so that the small businessman can also tender for contracts and compete in this sector. This point is also covered in the White Paper on the provision of labour.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House support the amending Bill. The maiden speech I made a number of years ago in this House was concerned mainly with the small business undertaking. Therefore, when legislation in this regard is amended we are always interested in it because we know that it is usually the small businessman that has the most problems. We also welcome it when legislation is amended to eliminate red tape and to facilitate matters in general. At that time I requested that the small industries section of the IDC should also be extended to the small businessman to a greater extent, and I am pleased that considerable progress has been made in this respect. We also requested that this reliable corporation should by no means restrict its assistance to small industries, and over the years they have, in fact, extended that aspect. The amending Bill before the House at present is an improvement on the Small Business Development Act of 1981. It makes provision for the passing of assets, rights, liabilities and obligations of certain companies that were previously wholly owned subsidiaries of the Development and Finance Corporation. It is true that there must be mutual protection; ie the corporation, as well as the person being assisted by the corporation must be protected. The Small Business Development Corporation is doing highly commendable work and it is therefore important that it should be protected in every respect. In terms of this legislation protection is now being assured

The small businessman who is assisted by the corporation is a very big asset to South Africa, since it is he who stands by his undertaking under all circumstances and at all times. It is also the small businessman who cannot always be assisted so easily by the commercial banks because they are not always confident that he is financially strong enough, for example, to provide the necessary quarantees when he requires credit. It is therefore very important that assistance in this sphere should be extended. It is also true that a small business is very often a family undertaking.

A country cannot consist only of large industries, since this would be an unhealthy trend. Too often large businesses amalgamate, which, of course, leads to monopolies. In certain cases this cannot be avoided, since it is not easy to finance a large industry and not everyone can be a big industrialist. However, we also know that when a person is really interested in his undertaking, even if it is small, purchasers receive fantastic service from that undertaking.

As I have already said, the small businessman sometimes has big problems, and I am pleased that he is being looked after now. I just want to mention to the hon the Minister that he is soon to receive an invitation from the publicity association of my home town, but I shall give him more details in that regard at a later stage. On that occasion, however, I want to show him and his Director-General what a local authority can do to assist the small business and the small businessman in a specific place, ie if the local authority co-operates in that regard. Take my own home town as an example. It is the town from which my constituency derives its name. I should very much like to show the hon the Minister what the town council of Nigel has done to establish small businessmen who would perhaps not otherwise have been established by now. These are small businessmen, whose undertakings are growing steadily. I therefore know that because we assist these people their undertakings will not stay small, but will become increasingly larger. It is even possible that their undertakings will eventually become giants in the economic development of this country.

I thank the hon the Minister for the present amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to react to what the hon member for Nigel said. I should also like to affirm that Nigel has probably set an example to other communities as regards the erection of factory units for small business undertakings. I think it would be worth taking the trouble to have a look at what has been done there.

Since the IDC was established 41 years ago, and the first loan of R3 500 was made by the IDC to a certain Mrs Greyvenstein to establish a home industry, this organization has grown quite considerably, and it became necessary to establish the Small Business Development Coporation to do in a specific sphere. After the Carlton Conference the need arose, inter alia, to stimulate and assist small business undertakings. As a result, the Small Business Development Corporation was established. This is a body which has also ventured into the sphere of operations of the other two development corporations. The amalgamation of the three corporations was therefore a logical consequence. The legislation we are now dealing with is therefore consequential legislation, through which administration will be facilitated.

I think we should indicate briefly that the power of the small business undertaking in the economy should never be underestimated. The small business undertaking has quite a number of definite advantages over a large business undertaking, including quicker and easier decision-making, because personal judgment plays a role here. Such a business undertaking, can also, with little difficulty, change its business strategy and then there is the personal service which its owner provides. There is a great degree of personal satisfaction in the achievements of such an organization. One can also mention quite a number of spheres in which a small business undertaking is definitely entitled to exist in our economy. As a provider of employment and also as a cornerstone of capitalism the small business undertaking plays a major and important role in our country.

The measure under discussion emphasizes the importance of the Small Business Development Corporation, and also indicates to us the wide scope of its sphere of operations. I therefore take pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr Speaker, I am rather amazed at times at what hon members can find to talk about when we have a very simple measure before us, such as the Bill that we are discussing at the moment. We have listened to a number of speeches extolling the virtues and the desirability of the Small Business Development Corporation. This Bill, however, is really aimed at correcting an error which the hon the Minister and his department made way back in 1981, when they forgot to include a stipulation that would allow for the transfer of the assets of the subsidiaries of the Development and Finance Corporation and of the Industrial Development Corporation to the Small Business Development Corporation. The existing measure likewise does not provide for the non-payment of transfer duties. That is what the hon the Minister said, Mr Speaker.

In respect of this particular measure before the House now I should like to criticize the hon the Minister for not doing his job properly. He now brings this measure to Parliament and we spend at least half an hour wasting valuable time in order to correct one of his errors. However, having said that, we realize that it is absolutely essential that this measure should go through because until it does go through the assets of those subsidiaries cannot be transferred. For that reason we are supporting this measure.

Mr Speaker, fairly lengthy representations were made in regard to this short statutory amendment. However, I think this is symptomatic of the enthusiasm prevailing in this House for the small businessman and his interests.

†The hon member for Walmer mentioned that point right at the start and I think that that was the theme of all the speeches, namely that we would like to see more progress in the field of small business and that we want to support any steps to encourage small business in this country.

The hon member put one or two questions to me. In the first instance, he referred to the small business information offices. These information offices are not going to be closed down but they are going to be transferred to the Small Business Development Corporation. This is part of our policy to rationalize activities in the field of small business services. At the moment I think that there is a certain amount of confusion among small businessmen as to whom they can approach for the sort of advice that they are looking for. The objective is to move towards what is almost a one-stop service for the small businessman. Therefore, these information offices will continue. This is all part and parcel of the rationalization program in regard to staff, overheads, research and information.

The hon member also inquired about company losses. These losses will be transferred to the Small Business Development Corporation which will certainly make good use of them.

*The hon member also referred to the problems being experienced by small businessmen over a broad spectrum of their activities. In this connection I just want to refer the hon member and all hon members to the fact that the report of the President’s Council which has just been published deals with many aspects of the work and problems of the small businessman. As a matter of fact, the recommendation that the information centres of the Council for the Promotion of Small Business should be transferred to the Small Business Development Corporation is one of the recommendations contained in the report of the President’s Council.

I also want to thank the hon member for Heilbron. He referred to the history of various corporations which led to the establishment of the Small Business Development Corporation. It goes without saying that, as far as the Coloured and Asian population groups were concerned, a great deal of work had to be done to promote the concept of small businesses. They have come of age and the establishment of the Small Business Development Corporation has also made it possible to give greater assistance to those communities. I also want to put it to you that the Small Business Development Corporation will still be able to render specific socio-economic services in those communities on a subsidized basis and that the State will compensate them for that deficit. It is therefore also possible to continue with some of the subsidized services of the past. There is continuity in many of these cases and the State compensates the Small Business Development Corporation for this.

The hon member also asked about the appointment of directors. Of course the A and B share capital is regulated by the memorandum of association. As I also indicated in my Second Reading speech, the Small Business Development Corporation is a registered company in terms of the Companies Act, 1983. Matters affecting the obligations of directors, shareholding and so on are set out in the memorandum of association in terms of the Companies Act.

I also want to thank the hon member for Nigel for his positive remarks. It is important for the community and local authorities in particular to play a role as well and to create a climate which will promote small business activities. In too many communities the attitude that prevails is that the Government should simply promote industrial development and keep the small businessman going. In the long run the contribution which the community and local government can make is, however, of decisive importance. I have no doubt that the initiative taken by Nigel in this regard will also pay dividends for them.

I also want to thank the hon member for Springs for his remarks on the importance of small business undertakings.

†I also want to thank the hon member for Amanzintoti and his party for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.