Mr Chairman, I have indicated that in view of the standpoint of the Hoexter Commission as expressed on page 177 of its report, I am quite willing to consider an amendment providing for an academic to possess practical experience as well before being asked to serve as a commissioner. Consequently I shall move an amendment in this regard in a moment. Moreover, that part of the clause which provides that he is to possess such other experience as, in the opinion of the Minister, renders him suitable for appointment as a commissioner, is being retained. That goes without saying. We may find ourselves dealing with a competent law adviser with many years’ experience. Why can such a man not serve in that capacity? Could we perhaps also find ourselves dealing with an auditor with a legal qualification, and the court will be dealing with accounting matters. It is therefore a question of wisdom that is acquired through experience, and a question of a man who can pass judgment and who also has a particular legal background.

†There is also the possibility of appointing a man schooled in medical jurisprudence. When I discussed this amendment with the hon member for Durban Central, I mentioned a name well known in the world of medical jurisprudence. A claim may well involve an individual and a medical practitioner. This man schooled in medical jurisprudence probably knows more about the law and appearances in court than many a practitioner who would qualify. We cannot keep this man off such a list. The hon member for Durban Central has indicated to me that he understands that situation. Perhaps he will still confirm that.

Consequently, Mr Chairman, I should like to withdraw amendment 1 with the leave of the Committee.

Amendment 1, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment:

1. 3. On page 7, in line 32, to omit all the words after “and” and to the end of the subsection and to substitute:

Mr Chairman, the amendment the hon the Minister has now moved provides that persons involved in the teaching of law must also have practical experience before they may be appointed as commissioners. It does not provide that they must of necessity have seven years’ practical experience but it does provide that experience which the hon the Minister deems to be adequate will be taken into account. This is an improvement on the clause as it reads at present. The amendment nevertheless makes it possible for the Minister to appoint as commissioner a person who has not necessarily had practical experience in the courts. I would prefer everyone doing duty as a commissioner to have practical experience although I can understand that it may well happen that a person who has not practised law may have the necessary experience regarding appearances in court owing to the fact that he may frequently have appeared as a witness and given advice in court. We on this side of the House accept the amendment as moved by the hon the Minister and so with leave of the Committee I withdraw the amendment I moved yesterday.

Amendment 2, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr Chairman, this clause deals with the area of jurisdiction of the court. The hon the Minister has already announced where the small claims court may start. I should like to ask him whether he intends establishing a small claims court in an area occupied solely by one population group, for example in Soweto or Atteridgeville, where it will be accessible to a specific population group. Will he in that case contemplate appointing Black advocates or attorneys to act as commissioners?

Mr Chairman, of course I will do that It is possible to have more than one court in one district. That is the answer, short and sweet. The courts will be manned by the best available people and will be selected on merit.

What about the venue?

Hearings will be held either in magistrate’s court or some other suitable place. It must, however, still be designated by the Minister by proclamation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr Chairman, clause 14(2) provides that no action shall be instituted against the State in a court. This aspect was raised during the Second Reading Debate. I then asked the hon the Minister what the reason was for including this provision in the Bill, There is no suggestion in the Hoexter Commission’s fourth interim report that this aspect has been discussed or that there has been any submission by any witnesses or body that this should be included. There is no suggestion in fact that this Bill should, in fact, contain such a provision. The hon the Minister did not specifically deal with it but the hon member for Nelspruit suggested that the reason why the State should not be cited as a defendant, was that it would defeat the object of the aims of the small claims court in that legally qualified officials from a specific department would then appear in the small claims court to deal with a plaintiff who may be a layman with no knowledge or experience of legal matters whatsoever. If that is the reason, it does not seem to hold water, especially if one takes into account that the Bill makes provision for companies to be cited as defendants. In clause 7(4) it is provided that a juristic person shall be represented in a court by its duly nominated director or other officer. In principle there is really no difference between citing a company or the State. It may a small company or it may be Rembrandt or Anglo American, which is in many respects similar to a State department. I see no difference in principle between citing a large company as a defendant or citing the State as a defendant. The State would then authorize one of its officials to appear in a small claims court on its behalf.

A second aspect which one has to take into account is that in practice it cannot be a person selected by the department because of his legal qualifications. It has to be someone who can testify to the cause of action. For instance, say the hon member for Nelspruit stops at a stop street and a police van knocks into the back of his car and causes R400 damage, and he then goes to the small claims court. The police cannot send their legal adviser to deal with the matter because he was not there when the accident took place. They will have to send the policeman who drove the vehicle. He will have to testify. On that basis the court will decide who is guilty and who is not guilty; who shall pay demages and who shall not pay damages. In practice the person directly involved with the cause of action, who can testify to it from personal knowledge, will have to be the one who appears in the small claims court. In principle, therefore, on sees no difference between allowing the State to be cited as a defendant and allowing a large company to be cited as a defendant.

I do appreciate that the Bill as it stands now, does not identify the type of official who shall appear in court. It does not deal with that aspect at all, but there is provision for the Minister to deal with that by regulation if clarity needs to be established there.

I do also appreciate that I should have moved an amendment to clause 7(1), where reference is made to clause 14(2) but I suggest that if this amendment is accepted, then one can move that clause 7 be reconsidered to enable us to deal with such an amendment.

I believe that many small claims do arise in cases in which the State is the defendant, and in order to enable the small man also to get equitable results in claims against the State—the so-called Big Brother—I submit that the individual should be allowed to cite the State as defendant in a small claims court. Therefore I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 9, in line 47, to omit subsection (2).

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central himself actually indicated the reasons why his amendment cannot be accepted. If I understood the hon member’s argument correctly, he actually wanted a witness to represent the State. This would create an impossible situation.

There is, of course, another reason why proceedings of this nature against the State are undesirable. Many State departments enjoy the protection of notices which precede such actions and which have to meet certain requirements. I assume that in practice in these courts the clerk of the court will assist the person instituting the action. This could place a burden on that clerk to demonstrate greater expertise than could reasonably be expected of him. He could, for example, be expected to ensure that the demand sent to the State complied with the existing legislation. The existing legislation differs from case to case and is, for example, not the same with regard to the SA Transport Services, the SA Police and the various other State departments. For that reason I want to suggest that this would be too involved and that the person applying to the small claims court would when he appeared in that court and learnt that his case could not be heard by that court of course be in an embarrassing position. It would also cause embarrassment for the staff of those courts.

Mr Chairman, I believe the hon member for Nelspruit has advanced a further valid reason which has not been raised before in this regard in the Committee.

†Lest the hon member for Sandton should resort again to speeches based on wrong conclusions, I believe I should elaborate somewhat more on this issue. The State is involved in a multitude of functions and activities with a potential for litigation. This necessitates that in the public interest, in cases of liability on the part of the State in civil actions, a person of some authority must be cited. In the normal course of events this person is the Minister in charge of the department concerned, who is normally represented in litigation by the State Attorney. Otherwise, if he is not represented by the State Attorney, that Minister would have to be there personally, which in theory means that the State machinery could grind to a standstill. I am sure that that is not what the hon member for Durban Central has in mind. An amendment aimed at accomplishing that I could perhaps have expected from another source. I am not, however, expecting an amendment based on a ulterior motive of that nature from the hon member for Durban Central.

In the normal course of events this person is the Minister of the department concerned, and he is normally represented in litigation by the State Attorney. Arbitrarily to cite the Minister or any employee of the department in question—whether he be in authority or not—would lead to an untenable situation. As I have already said, it could cause the State machinery to grind to a standstill. Representation by the State Attorney in actions against the State is therefore essential. In view of clause 7(2) of the Bill litigation against the State can therefore not be accommodated in a small claims court.

Furthermore, owing to the nature of the claims that can be expected to be taken to small claims, courts, it is unlikely that the State will often be involved, and the reasons for actions against the State in these courts do therefore appear to be limited. In clause 16(f) the jurisdiction of a small claims court is specifically excluded in actions based on malicious prosecution, wrongful imprisonment and wrongful arrest. This clause is based on paragraph 13.8.4 of the Hoexter Commission’s report. Therefore many of the issues which could possibly involve the State are otherwise excluded. One of the main features of small claims courts will be that claims will be dealt with speedily and without any unnecessary lapse of time which often characterises the proceedings of other courts. The only lapse of time in small claims courts will be the period of 14 days that has to elapse after the letter of demand prescribed in clause 29(1), and the time between the issue of summons and the trial date. This situation is one which Government departments will find difficult if not impossible to cope with. In this connection I want to congratulate the hon member for Nelspruit for having spotted it and having dealt with the matter from a different point of view. Such a department simply needs time to determine the facts and circumstances which led to the action, and again it is in the public interest that it should do so. Why is this so? It is because it is the taxpayer who ultimately pays. Such a claim has to be adequately investigated if the State is addressed. A State department will not have sufficient time to prepare itself for a trial in a small claims court. In the circumstances it appears inadvisable to allow actions against the State in a small claims court. The other courts are, of course, still available to persons wishing to institute actions against the State by virtue of the provisions of clause 24 of the Bill, or by virtue of their own choice. They are not being deprived of their recourse in this regard. There again, the commissioner himself may decide where the State is involved that the matter is too complex on the grounds, for instance, of vicarious liability. If, as the hon member for Sand-ton proved on a previous occasion, he does not understand the law, I can explain to him what “vicarious liability” means.

Finally, Sir, matters in which the State are involved may be so time-consuming that the small claims court may be inhibited and thus its very objective defeated. I must therefore tell the hon member for Durban Central that although the commissioner is not at present permitted on the grounds that a matter is too time-consuming to order its reference to a higher court, we shall monitor the situation. As I have also mentioned to the hon member this morning, if it appears as though the objectives of these courts will be defeated, we shall not hesitate to allow the commissioner a discretion on the grounds not only that a matter is too involved but also that it is too time-consuming, to have such matter referred to a higher court. I think the guidelines that we have all accepted are that these matters will have to be dealt with expeditiously otherwise the whole objective of this type of court will be defeated.

Under the circumstances, therefore, I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon member for Durban Central.

Mr Chairman, while expressing my regret that the hon the Minister is not prepared to accept my amendment, I wish to stress two points.

In the first instance, there is the fact that certain causes of action are expressly excluded from the small claims courts in terms of clause 16(f). Certain of these causes of action are those which can only be brought against the State, such as wrongful imprisonment and wrongful arrest. The very fact that these provisions appear in this clause suggests to me that the commission had in mind that in other areas the State should be treated in the same way as any company or large organization.

The second point is that all the facts mentioned by the hon member for Nelspruit and, to some extent, by the hon the Minister as well, also apply to a large company or organization, except the period of notice to which the hon member for Nelspruit referred.

The very same problems which the hon the Minister foresees with the State, also apply to the large corporations. Let us take the simple example again which I have mentioned. Two cars stop at a robot. The one is bumped into by a policeman and the other one is bumped into by a representative of Anglo American. Both have R400 damage to their car. The one who is bumped into by the representative of Anglo American can go to the small claims court. He is suing a huge corporation with subsidiaries and companies all over the country, but the one who is bumped into by the policeman is not in a position to go to the small claims court.

I do not want to take it any further; I accept that the hon the Minister is not going to accede to this amendment and I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

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

1. 1. On page 9, in line 59, and on page 11, in lines 2, 6, 10, 13 and 14, respectively, to omit “R1 500” and to substitute “R1 000”.

I explained the amendment fully in my Second Reading speech. The official Opposition intimated that they would accept the amendment.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

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

1. 1. On page 11, in fines 29 and 31, respectively, to omit “R1 500” and to substitute “R1 000”.

The amendment I have just moved is self-explanatory. Its objective is to lower the proposed level of jurisdiction to R1 000.

There is a further amendment—it does not appear on the Order Paper—which I want to move. As a result of the careful study of the clause made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth North, he brought this matter to my attention in his speech. I thank him for having done so. The hon member made a particular study of the Bill and brought this matter to our attention. This was how we eventually came to realize that we should effect an improvement here.

What this amounts to briefly is that in clause 15 we are expressly giving the court jurisdiction in regard to the delivery or transfer of property not exceeding R1 000 in value without an alternative claim for payment of damages. Clause "16(d) excludes specific performance without an alternative claim for payment of damages in general because in conjunction with clause 15(a) an exception is made in clause 16(d) in the case of the delivery of property not exceeding R1 000 in value. The printer’s devil would seem to have slipped into this well-drafted Bill again and we accidentally omitted certain words. I therefore move the following amendment:

1. 2. On page 11, in fine 30, to omit “of movable property” and to substitute:

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29:

Mr Chairman, I merely have a question for the hon the Minister. This is the clause which provides how actions are instituted and how a plaintiff has to draw up a brief statement of claim. We realize that the purpose of the legislation is to keep things very simple and I assume that the statement of claim is going to be a simple statement of his cause of action. I wonder whether the hon the Minister has given any thought to providing assistance to people in drawing up those statements of claim because many people are barely literate. I just wondered what sort of facilities would be available to would-be plaintiffs in the drafting of their claims.

Mr Chairman …

Don’t give an insipid answer now.

That interjection from that very dull member will not incite me to reply to him in any way whatsoever.

Clause 11 is very clear and provides for the magistrate of the district for which a court has been established to appoint so many clerks and assistant clerks of the court, interpreters and legal assistants as may be necessary for the functioning of the court. [Interjections.] Then I suggest that the hon member should not ask redundant questions.

Mr Chairman, clause 29(3) provides that a defendant may lodge a written plea. I want to suggest that we change the word “may” to “shall”. As I said at the Second Reading, I am of the opinion that the claim and the plea must be lodged with the presiding officer before he hears a case. I should like to make this suggestion.

Mr Chairman, we shall keep an eye on the situation and, if it becomes necessary in practice, we shall give it our attention.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 30:

Mr Chairman, I have on a previous occasion raised the question of the plaintiff being able to withdraw his claim, either before the action or during the action. I did have in mind that in such an event he should have the consent of the defendant, but I think that, by and large, if we follow the normal procedure in the court that a plaintiff is entitled to withdraw his claim at any stage, we should also provide for it here. The safeguard here is the words “on such conditions”, so that if costs have been incurred by the defendant up to that stage, the withdrawal of the claim by the plaintiff will probably carry a penalty of costs to the defendant to compensate him for any expenses he may have incurred up to that stage.

Mr Chairman, the hon member has virtually reasoned out the whole thing for himself, and I do not need to say anything further.

Clause agreed to.

Mr Speaker, on the previous occasion when we debated this legislation I placed on record our indebtedness to the officials. We ought to have understanding and appreciation for this system because we are fortunate in having the best system in the world.

I also asked the hon the Deputy Minister to consider sending conscientious objectors to Defence Force service, who have the necessary qualifications, to this department in order to help alleviate the critical manpower situation.

Finally I referred to the shifting of the responsibility of deeds registries. According to the amended legislation the obligations and responsibilities are shifted almost completely to the legal practice and the conveyancer himself. By so doing the manpower position in the department itself is being alleviated. There is still one problem, though, and that is the question of costs. This will become an increasingly important element in the problems of this section of the profession.

I want to state categorically that South Africa not only has the best system, but is also very fortunate in the sense that there is absolute certainty that information obtained from a deeds registry may be accepted as correct. For that reason court cases in respect of deeds registry matters are an absolute rarity in South Africa.

The mistake of comparing us with the United Kingdom is sometimes made and the statement is then made that in South Africa the concept caveat emptor—let the buyer beware—removes the latent defects from the seller, and this is erroneously accepted by us as a concept and general principle. In actual fact we have in South Africa, according to Roman-Dutch law the concept of respondeat venditor—let the seller be answerable. Because this is the system in accordance with which we deal with this concept in South Africa, it is interesting, but not generally known that, unlike the situation in countries in which the caveat emptor principle is accepted, the question of title insurance is entirely unknown in South Africa. Because title insurance, in the countries in which the concept of “let the buyer beware” applies, is a permanent process, we in South Africa should be grateful that we have this situation of certainty. We are therefore in a situation in which financial institutions today will not hesitate to accept unconditionally the certificate or factual material of the deeds registry. The owner of property need not be worried about any problems cropping up in regard to his title. Because this is the case and because it is not necessary for any financial institution or private owner of land to take out title insurance—which is a permanent process, with annual payments—there is an obligation on the financial institutions to give the hon the Deputy Minister and his department their co-operation in order to devise a better, shorter and cheaper system and one which will be cheaper to the general public.

The hon member for Hillbrow correctly stated that we should remember we were now moving into a larger and new dimension where we would now to a very large extent have to make use of members of the coloured groups in respect of deeds registry procedures. For that very reason we should accept it as a first premise that we cannot draw any distinction between coloured groups as far as either the system as such or the cost system is concerned, We know that we cannot give the various groups different degrees of security, stability as well as legal security. For that reason we shall have to try, as far as possible, to bring down the overall costs structure. I reiterate: Because we have the system of respondeat venditor— let the seller be answerable—we have that legal security for everyone, financial institutions as well as title owners, and we can afford to demand their co-operation in order to develop a quicker and cheaper system in co-operation with the legal profession, a system which will still continue to offer the same legal security.

By way of criticism of our system it was also mentioned that the legal profession had a monopoly as far as this matter was concerned. Let me reject this once and for all, I hope, on the basis of the same argument that we must remember that it is an extremely delicate profession which requires great care and many years of experience and training. Just as, when one has to undergo a delicate operation, one will first select the best surgeon with specialized knowledge to perform the operation, one will also not have so many problems with his specialized account. As far as conveyancing in South Africa is concerned, I think that we should compare these practitioners to surgeons who do specialized work on behalf of the public, which requires absolute security. I just want to refer once again to the fact that in other countries one has to take out insurance to secure one’s title so that, if any claims are lodged against you, you will not be detrimentally affected.

I want to refer briefly to the Bill itself and just point out in general that as far as clause 1 is concerned it affects a general improvement to the existing situation. Why should there have been registries only in the centres concerned? Secondly, with the requirements in connection with the new development in the sphere of the registration of immovable property, it will be essential for registries to be opened in other centres. The hon member for Hillbrow that he foresaw that such an registry would have to be opened in Soweto. I think the same thing could happen in quite a number of other places. That is why it is a good thing that this amendment is stated as it is here. In this way there will be room for manoeuvre and the Act will remain applicable continuously, without a further amendment having to be effected.

The same applies to clause 2. It is really not necessary for the chief registrar of deeds to act at the same time as the person entrusted with the registration of deeds. These are two completely different divisions. The one is administrative and the other requires specialized knowledge of conveyancing. I think it is essential that this distinction should be drawn.

The reference in clause 4 to the divisional councils is welcomed. It is practical, and from a financial point of view also imperative that this provision to be placed on the Statute Book. With the change that has occurred in the divisional council system, this adjustment is absolutely essential and is welcomed. I endorse the other amendments in this legislation.

Because I have no problems with the provisions in this legislation, and because I think it is an improvement on the present system, I should like to support this legislation on behalf of this side of the House. The hon the Deputy Minister has already obtained the support of the hon member for Hillbrow for this legislation, and I think he will also obtain the support of the other parties.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Vasco made a very interesting speech on a technical subject which he has an exceptional knowledge. It is a great pity that the hon member Mr Theunissen, who was really to have spoken on behalf of this side of the House, cannot be present here this morning. He has an exceptional knowledge of this field.

We in South Africa are fortunate that we have a registration system in respect of deeds and other proprietary rights which is probably unequalled in any country in the world. The hon member for Vasco has already referred to the fact that this promotes legal security because the general public can rely on documents executed in the Deeds Registry. It has been my “privilege” to have encountered the misfortune in my career of having a case in which the deed with which I had to work did not reflect the rights of the person involved correctly, from which an interminable Supreme Court case ensued, to the detriment of my client. He never forgave me for having become involved in that case, while I was entirely blameless. Therefore it is imperative that we should guard against the exceptionally high standards which apply in respect of our deeds registrations today being lowered. The public has become accustomed to being able to rely on what is stated in a document registered in the Deeds Registry. Most people do not realize what an important role the registration of deeds plays in their everyday lives. It affects proprietary rights, antenuptial contracts, long-term leases, etc. It is therefore essential that in future professionalism of the highest order should continue to be maintained.

The registration of deeds not only affects the individual, but also particular communities. In the past each province had its own registry, but in addition to that certain regions, for example Vryburg, King William’s Town, Kimberley, and others, also had their own deeds registries for their particular areas. In the past this was considered to be of so important that any change to that system could only be affected by legislation of this Parliament. There was an important reason for that. It was not only individuals or communities that had an interest, but there were also professional people who had an interest in the matter. I am referring to professional people who, over many years, acquired and built up vested interests. These were very closely related to where a particular deeds registry would have its seat.

We know of the struggle in the past in the Transvaal between Johannesburg and Pretoria in this connection. Consequently the seats of the registries were specifically designated in the past by way of a law of this Parliament. The amending Bill now under discussion seeks to bring about a change in this position, and the right which was previously vested in Parliament, is now being removed from the highest legislative authority and placed in the hands of the Minister. Whereas in the past the seat of a registry could be changed or a new registry established only by way of legislation of Parliament, the Minister is now being empowered to create additional deeds registries by say of proclamation, and we are not even being told whom he will consult or even that he will consult. I consider this to be a deficiency. We have reason to suspect that the legal profession, and particularly the attorneys, were not consulted to a sufficient extent in connection with this specific aspect. We feel unhappy about the fact that amendments in this connection can be effected by way of proclamation by the Minister without the interested parties, and in particular the profession now involved in this matter, being consulted. For that reason we do not feel happy at all about the provisions of clause 1.

We know what consideration caused this Bill to be brought forward, and it was more specifically the registration of the new leasehold system in respect of Black people. We accept that an exceptional need exists at present which has to be met, but to our way of thinking that is not sufficient reason to deviate from a principle which has applied in our country for decades. We are therefore of the opinion that the hon the Deputy Minister should find another solution to his particular problem in this connection.

In the past the staff of the deeds registries were constantly being required to work overtime, and for a considerable time even without remuneration. Fortunately they are being remunerated for overtime today. These are people who are required to have an exceptional technical knowledge of documentation and also and exceptional legal knowledge. They must have a special knowledge of the law of succession, the law of things and company law. In my opinion there are few officials in the employ of the State who are required to have such a wide general legal knowledge as the officials of the deeds registries. Since we now wish to establish additional registries to meet certain needs, I believe that the shortage of properly trained staff which now exists, will simply be further accentuated. Consequently I want to make an appeal in advance to the hon the Deputy Minister to do everything in his power to attract additional staff in good time and to train them properly to man the new registries envisaged by this legislation, because we dare not allow any lowering of standards to occur in this connection.

We are fortunate that we have a registration system on which we can rely. In the first place this is owing to properly trained staff, to an excellent registration system and last, but not least, to the high standard of the private practitioner who has helped to make a success of this system. I maintain that if it had not been for that high standard of the profession involved in the registration of deeds, we would not have had such an excellent registration system. I also wish to convey my thanks to the officials of the Land Bank who carry out their own registration work, and in particular to the officials of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure who also have to carry out their own deeds registration work and who are rendering an exceptional service.

I do not wish to take up any more of the time of this House, but I should just like to reiterate the standpoint of our side on this Bill. In principle we are not opposed to this Bill, but as far as clause 1 is concerned, we feel that the powers being given to the Minister are too wide. We are also of the opinion that the hon the Deputy Minister, when he establishes new deeds registries, should do so in consultation with or after consultation with the particular profession dealing with the registration of deeds. For that reason I want to make an appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to consider moving an amendment in this connection during the Committee Stage.

We have always been jealous of the fact that the seats of our deeds registries were determined by way of legislation by this highest Chamber in the country. For that reason we are not satisfied that Parliament is now being deprived of this power and that it is being left to the discretion of a single Minister.

Mr Speaker, I want to approach this measure from a layman’s point of view. Unlike the hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Vasco, I have no professional knowledge of the execution of deeds. Consequently, I shall try to approach the discussion of this measure from a different angle.

I shall deal with the objection of the hon member for Barberton relating to the establishment of additional deeds registries and branch offices by way of proclamation in the Gazette during the course of my speech.

In this measure positive attempts are being made to expedite and facilitate the registration of deeds. In the past it happened all too frequently that as a result of their activities being confirmed to certain regions, an accumulation of submitted deeds occurred at specific registries. This occurred to such an extent that there were sometimes unnecessary delays, which caused frustration, not only on the part of conveyances, but also on the part of the clients involved.

Such delays occurred during the past few years in particular. And it is therefore encouraging to learn now that the backlog in the various deeds registries—and here I want to refer specifically to the deeds registry in Pretoria—has been eliminated to such an extent that nowadays it takes only approximately 11 working days to register a carefully prepared application. Therefore it is also appropriate that we convey our sincere thanks to the Registrar of Deeds and every deeds registry in this country—and here I should like to associate myself with previous speakers—for their unselfish and hard work in this connection, as well as for the greater sacrifices on their part in order to cope with the chronic staff shortage with which they were burdened. They worked with great sacrifice and enthusiasm to eliminate this backlog. For that reason I think they deserve the thanks of this House.

The most import object of this measure is probably that it will now be possible to establish deeds registries and branch registries at strategic places to attend to the registration of 99-year leaseholds. As the hon the Deputy Minister explained in his Second Reading speech, the passing of the Black Communities Development Act made it necessary for rights of leasehold to be properly registered and assured. The rights of leasehold system is still in its infancy, and I foresee that the need to own one’s own home will continue to grow. Black people are increasingly going to seek the security and stability which owning one’s own home offers. To the extent to which their incomes improve, the need to own their own homes will also increase. If they are prepared to expend capital to obtain a dwelling place, they will want that security of knowing that there are established practices available to make those properties their own. They will want the security of knowing that the documents which they receive are an absolute guarantee which will never give them a moment’s doubt about the validity of such documents and deeds. It is only the deeds registry that can provide them with that absolute certainty. In this regard, this measure is therefore a courageous and positive step which I think is going to cause Black people to do everything possible, and with growing confidence, to acquire his own home.

The measure also affords the employer who is prepared to help his employee to acquire a house under the leasehold system greater security and greater permanence, thus making him more inclined to render such assistance. He can make his contribution with greater confidence, in order to make it possible for his Black employee to take advantage of the leasehold system.

The most important factor, however, is the fact that the hon the Minister of Community Development may now establish deeds registries and sub-deeds registries by way of notice in the Gazette in certain areas in order to expedite the registration of 99 year leaseholds. This is probably the point on which we differ with the hon member for Barberton because we believe that this will be conducive to expediting matters, and that there is an urgent need for proper attention to be given to this matter. What we are doing here, therefore, is to make provision for it in good time so that when the leasehold scheme is in full swing there will be no unnecessary delays and congestion at a few isolated registries and so that there will be a wider distribution of registries which will be conducive to an effectively functioning system.

Clauses 6 and 7 of the measures also regulate further methods to place the registration and processing of expropriated land, as well as servitudes, beyond any doubt.

This Bill, in exactly the same way as other carefully considered amending measures already introduced by the Government, is aimed at causing the State machinery to function with the greatest degree of effectiveness. Consequently it is a great pleasure for me to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, at this juncture we have a layman following a layman in the discussion of this Bill owing to the unavoidable absence of our party spokesman in this regard. However, there are some points that I wish to raise because the Bill does effect substantial changes regarding various principles in that there is no single principle in this Bill. It is an essential piece of legislation, however, and we shall support it at Second Reading. I wish to raise the queries that we have at this stage so that we can follow them up, particularly the first one, during the Committee Stage.

We have no problems in regard to clauses 2, 6, 7 and 8, and I do not intend therefore to discuss them. There are, however, a few issues in regard to the other clauses that I wish to raise.

The first of these is in respect of clause 1 to which the hon member for Barberton referred. This is a matter of considerable concern in some circles. I can understand that the Government does not want to have to come to Parliament every time an office becomes essential due to a large new Black housing development. But equally we can understand the radical effect this can have on the legal profession. I have been told that at some of the smaller centres, one in particular where there are 12 attorneys practising, if the deeds office there were to close half of them would have to go out of business. So, half of the business of attorneys in small towns, is in fact conveyancing. There is concern about this. I understand that representations have been made to the hon the Minister but it does not appear that sufficient notice is taken of the critical effect the closing of an office could have; not merely a disadvantage, but a critical effect on the lives of professional people, and not only on the lives of professional people who practise as conveyancers, but also on the public at large. There are many advantages attached to having an office available. A buyer, for instance, is then able to go to the deeds office, look at the plans and get the information he seeks. So it will bring advantages not only to the profession, but also to members of the public to have a deeds office at their disposal. Even the opening of a new office affects an existing office, unless it is restricted to the registration of leasehold rights. The opening of a new office brings about an amendment of the area which was served by the then existing office. The opening of a new office will bring about a reduction in the amount of conveyancing done through the then existing office.

Therefore I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he is prepared to consider an amendment in the Committee stage, an amendment which will have three objectives. In the first place it requires him to advertise the intention to open or close a deeds office, a regional office; secondly, that a period be allowed for objections or representations to be made about that intention and, thirdly, after having considered any objections or representations and after a decision has been made to allow a reasonable and adequate period before the decision is implemented in order to give the legal profession time to adjust to the change. I will move an amendment to this effect in the Committee stage and I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will consider it carefully.

I have a query also in respect of clause 4. The amendment proposed here is I understand a continuation of an amendment which started in the days of the Orange River Scheme, the flooding of land which required transfer. It has gradually been expanded to include the State in free and gratis registration of transfer. This is a sound principle because it is the taxpayers’ money and we have no objection to the same principle being applied now to a local authority, in this case a Cape divisional council which has a change made to its area. It can, however, also affect other local authorities and in particular, in terms of the Black Local Authorities Act and the Black Communities Development Act, the authorities that will be taking over certain property in the areas of their jurisdiction. The amendment which we have here states that where all the land in a local authority area is transferred, but in the new setup for which this very Bill is designed, one will have the situation that some land will be transferred either from an administration board or perhaps from a White local authority to a Black local authority—a village or town council—while other parts of that land will go to the new development boards for the development of housing. Therefore one will not have all the land involved going from an existing authority—by definition an administration board is a local authority—to another local authority but the land may perhaps be separated and it may be transferred to two local authorities. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to tell the House why this is limited to all land in a transfer from one to another body. Will the Black local authorities not fall under this because of the word “all” in the clause?

I now come to the key, the main purpose of this measure, and that is clauses 3, 5 and 9 which provide for the registration of 99-year leases in respect of the Black townships. The hon member for Hillbrow dealt with this and I want to take the matter further. Firstly, I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister why leasehold sectional title is specifically excluded from the registration provisions. In terms of the Black Communities Development Act there is provision for individual leasehold over residential property and there is provision for sectional title. A sectional title building can either be a multi-unit dwelling or a business centre where property such as shops and offices may be taken over and ownership obtained by 99-year leases or particular offices or shops. That, however, is excluded from this registration, but it is in fact one of the types of ownership which are now provided under Black communities. I do not want to delay the House by going into all the details but it is specifically one of the forms of leasehold provided in terms of the Black Communities Development Act. The definition of “right to leasehold” includes the right to sectional title leasehold, but that is excluded specifically in the definition which we are now putting into this Bill. The definition is that “right of leasehold” means a right of leasehold contemplated in section 52, and includes a right in respect of a sectional leasehold unit as contemplated in section 55, and “leasehold” has a corresponding meaning. When the hon the Minister introduced the Bill he said that this definition in the Black Communities Development Act now has to be incorporated into the Deeds Registries Act. However, it is of course a different definition because the definition which is being introduced in clause 9 as an amendment to section 102 is that “right of leasehold” means a right of leasehold as defined in section 1 of the Black Communities Development Act, 1984, excluding a right in respect of a sectional leasehold unit referred to in that definition. We therefore have a different definition, providing for an exclusion which is not catered for anywhere else. This is the first specific point I want to make.

Let me say at once that we welcome very much indeed the fact that this registration of right of leasehold is now going to be handled by the Deeds Office. The procedure was changed by the Select Committee on the Constitution when we considered the measure and to us it is vital and extremely gratifying that instead of the Department of Co-operation and Development, one deeds office is going to deal with all title and control of land. However, I question whether in fact we need to have a new definition, except perhaps in so far as it affects the procedure for registration. In terms of the existing Act, the definition of land, of immovable property, includes leases, and therefore does provide for leasehold. It is provided for in the definition of the registration procedures for the registration of leases. We would of course prefer that there should be freehold title. The hon member for Hillbrow also raised this point. Basically we think that freehold, because of convention, has become symbolic as the basis of a stable urban population. However, this is not the issue in the Bill and I do not intend debating it. It is not this hon Deputy Minister’s problem, but a matter of political policy and philosophy. However, I do want to put on record that we believe that freehold is a better form of title. Where I differ from the hon member for Hillbrow, is that we accept that leasehold is an improvement on what used to exist. We accept that in the practical reality of the situation in South Africa, because of the lack of surveyed plots, the cost of surveying and the years of delay there would be before townships could be totally surveyed, there has to be some other system. To simply go for freehold would delay home-ownership interminably. Therefore we accept leasehold, but view it as the first step towards freehold. We believe that the Government will anyway in time, and not such a long time ahead, accept freehold as being available to Blacks as well. It is part of the reform process, it is part of the evolution. Even the minds of many Government members and Ministers are part of an evolutionary process. They are moving into the 20th century and we will have freehold title. We therefore accept leasehold as a step towards freehold.

Mr Speaker, in what respect does the hon member for Durban Point differ from us on this point?

The hon member criticized the leasehold system.

No, I said that we prefer freehold. But there is nothing wrong with leasehold.

Then we have no difference.

The leasehold system is in terms of the Black Communities Development Act renewable every time it is transferred. No owner will outlive his 99-year lease. In other words, before the 99-year lease expires, there will be a new owner, whether by sale or by inheritance. In practice the 99-year lease is therefore ownership in perpetuity. There is a second reason why we accept it. It gives a person the opportunity to have leasehold title without waiting for surveys and without the high costs. It is in fact ownership in leasehold for perpetuity and it is a step towards full title. For that reason we supported the Black Communities Development Bill at the time and we still support it now.

I raise this problem particularly because there is a resistance to the 99-year leasehold. There is a resistance because it is seen as being different from what other race groups have. If it were seen as a step to freehold, I believe the resistance would disappear. As I pointed out, there is provision at the moment for leasehold in section 102 in the Act. It reads:

Why do we need a different definition of a lease? It is important that we make it clear during this debate that this is not an inferior type of lease to that which is provided in the Deeds Registries Act. I believe it is better than normal leasehold because of its renewal provision that makes it leasehold in perpetuity and “99-year lease” a meaningless phrase. It is merely there to satisfy the right wing of the political sphere who does not want Blacks ever to be a part of White South Africa. The hon member for Gezina would understand this. So it means that while they may not have it for perpetuity, they have it forever. We must make it clear that it is not an inferior form of title.

We must be absolutely clear on this. The present leasehold system is open to abuse. Under the Department of Community Development’s Vote and in other debates I have referred to this. It is abused by unscrupulous developers who obtain an alienated property which is under 99-year leasehold title. This has happened in particular in my constituency. They then use it to exploit the tenant and to make a quick million and disappear. This has happened. A few unscrupulous developers have created tremendous hardship and misery. However, now matters are starting to settle down as regards those buildings because of the application of the share-block system, which is all one can have on a leasehold property—one cannot have section title on it.

Sir, if those developers were unscrupulous, I want to say that I have now come across a new form of exploitation that makes them look like absolute amateurs at the game of bleeding people. I refer to the Durban City Council which is using this leasehold basis ruthlessly for what I regard as blatant extortion in order to get from the tenants in leasehold property rentals which are absolutely totally ridiculous. The rentals are reviewed every 10 years in terms of the lease and at that time the city council simply says it has got those tenants by whatever it may be it has got them by and puts up their rentals. I shall just give a few examples because it is only indirectly relevant. In my constituency a rental of R8 600 was increased to R102 000 per annum. Other examples of increases are R8 000 to R50 000, R6 820 to R31 715, R4 000 to R31 000 and R11 000 to R60 000. Those are just examples from my constituency of what is happening under the leasehold system.

The reason why I raise that is that, in accepting this new right to leasehold for Black townships, we have to make it absolutely clear that that sort of unscrupulous extortion of blood money by a local authority is not going to be possible in terms of the new right to leasehold. It will now be sold once and that will be the end of payments other than the service levies for which people will still be responsible. If the Black people, who already have a resistance to the 99-year lease, were to think that the Department of Co-operation and Development, the development boards or Black town councils could do to them what Durban is doing to White ratepayers, not one leasehold would be sold. Here I am, for once, talking for the White resident who lives in a flat which is sold under sectional title under leasehold and who is totally and ruthlessly exploited. This is nothing but greed, greed to get more money, largely out of retired pensioners, for the coffers of the authority which has power over them. We may have to look at some sort of provision providing protection. There are all sorts of protection under the existing Act for leases, covering, for instance, how they may be renewed and the right of renewal.

There is, however, no protection clearly specified in respect of this new right to leasehold in Black townships. I ask the hon the Minister to put it on record clearly that this Bill will not make it possible for what is happening to Whites under ordinary leasehold to happen to Blacks under the right to leasehold. I have discussed this with the hon the Minister of Community Development and the hon member for Umbilo has also discussed it, and I know that the hon the Minister is very sympathetic indeed and I hope he is going to help us with this because it is very important in regard to the new approach to Black housing that this start with ownership should be acceptable and popular and should be implemented on a much broader scale than at present. For that to happen, we have to show its advantages and benefits and its safeguards against any misuse and we also have to show that it is not inferior to the existing registration of leasehold. With that, we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member who has just resumed his seat devoted a large part of his speech to leasehold and possible malpractices which may arise from it. I do not intend to react to this. With all due respect, I do not believe it is relevant to this specific piece of legislation. The hon member claimed to be a layman, but I feel it should be clear to an old Parliamentarian like he is that his argument is not relevant to this legislation. Where it is relevant is not at issue at the moment. [Interjections.]

I should like to confine myself to the amending Bill at present before us. I want to point out that in general the Bill makes provision for three matters. In the first place, it makes provision for organizations as contained in clause 1. The Minister is being empowered to establish or close deeds registries in future. In the second place, the legislation deals with leasehold registrations and, in the third place, there are a few provisions in the legislation which deal with the registration of the property of divisional councils which have amalgamated. Of course, the Bill also deals with expropriation.

In the first place, I want to refer to the closure and establishment of deeds registries. I come from an area where there are no deeds registries. Attorneys, myself included, have made representations for many years now for a deeds registry to be established in Port Elizabeth, but we have always been told that there is insufficient staff available to establish a deeds registry there. It has also been said that requirements with regard to the removal of certain maps from the Cape Town deeds registry and their transfer to Port Elizabeth make the establishment of a deeds registry in Port Elizabeth impossible. I am therefore very glad to see that in future we shall only need to make representations to the hon the Minister to establish a deeds registry in Port Elizabeth, and that it will not be necessary to justify our actions to the Side Bar in Cape Town.

This brings me to the arguments of the hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Durban Point. With all due respect, I do not think it is necessary for notices to be sent to attorneys before a deeds registry is established at a specific place. I think attorneys, wherever they may be, will welcome the establishment of a deeds registry or a sub-deeds registry in their specific areas. When I consider the places where deeds registries exist at present, I cannot actually imagine that with the possible exception of Vryburg and Kimberley there can be any great fear that if those deeds registries were to be closed, many attorneys in the relevant areas would be without work. As the hon the Deputy Minister so rightly pointed out in his Second Reading speech, it is actually essential that the establishment of deeds registries be affected more easily than has been the case in the past. Therefore I welcome particularly the specific provisions of clause 1, with the proviso that sufficient trained staff should be available. As hon members have already pointed out, we are all proud of the service rendered by our deeds registries and we should like to see that high standard maintained. As has already been mentioned by hon members, the responsibility resting on the conveyancer is now considerably greater, and this therefore also makes it easier to establish other deeds registries.

The provision also makes simplification possible because, in the first place, the registration of leasehold properties, the registration of expropriated properties and the documents which have to be submitted in such cases, are now set out clearly. The registration of deeds resulting from the amalgamation of divisional councils in the Cape is also to be welcomed. In my opinion, these are essential provisions and we thank the hon the Deputy Minister for their inclusion in the legislation. I have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth North, and I am amazed that he bears a certain amount of malice against my birthplace, namely King William’s Town. The hon member for Durban Point also mentioned this particular town. He said although it was small it has had a deeds office for a long time, and if the deeds office is removed it would take away the livelihood of many people in that town. I really feel very sorry indeed that the hon member for Port Elizabeth North even raised this particular point. Port Elizabeth can manage without a deeds office, but that is a problem which the hon the Deputy Minister will have to solve in due course.

In South Africa a high premium is traditionally placed on land ownership and the accompanying rights. The right of ownership is entrenched in the South African legal system, and the existing land registration system is the result of the demands which the South African society makes on such a system. The South African system of land registration is especially characterized by the high degree of security it affords landowners, and this has been said repeatedly by other speakers in this debate. The system on the one hand guarantees that the property itself can clearly and accurately be identified and, on the other hand, that ownership and possible restrictions that may apply in that regard, are clearly spelt out. Owing to this certainty, development can be undertaken in this country with absolute confidence, and everybody knows exactly where he stands. The sophisticated South African land registration system, however, makes high demands on administrative procedures that would be followed, and on the expertise of those people in the department who are active in this field. It in addition provides a firm foundation for a sound property investment industry in South Africa.

The Deeds Registries Act, 1937, provides that the right to ownership of land may be transferred from one person to another only by means of a deed of transfer. That is one piece of paper that is necessary to establish ownership. Apart from rights to ownership, other real rights to the property may be transferred also only by means of a deed, usually a notarial deed. These are very, very important principles which have been established in the past. Heyl refers to the South African registration system as a system of three identities: the identity of the land, the identity of the person and the identity of the right. The task of deeds registration is therefore essentially the exact determination of these identities in each registration process and the documentation of such identities. It is important that these aims should be borne in mind at all times especially when the contents of title deeds and the tasks of deeds offices are being considered.

I am very pleased that the first and second reports of the Commission of Inquiry into Township Establishment and Related Matters have been laid on the Table of this House. It is known as the Venter Commission. I was privileged to serve on it. In this report one finds a tremendous source of information. I am delighted to see this report has been tabled because that allows one to quote from it in connection with what the situation will be.

I should like to deal, however, with one particular problem. Certain Government bodies have a tendency to require that control measures relating to the utilization of property should be contained in title deeds. If these development control measures are tied to title deeds, a new dimension is introduced; a dimension relating to planning control as such, and not really to ownership. When registry offices are incorporated into the broader Government hierarchy it is often forgotten that these offices have a quasi-judicial task to perform, and that independence and objectiveness are prerequisites if the offices are to function properly.

In the light of this tendency, I believe, it would be entirely wrong to endeavour to use the deeds office to police the principles and the execution of the Group Areas Act, for instance. There has been a suggestion—and I should like to deal with it now—that the Group Areas Act should be repealed but that title deeds should bear the race group or ethnic identity of each township, and this would reduce the independence and the objectiveness of the deeds office. I have here with me the report by the Technical Committee of Inquiry into the Group Areas Act. The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act is of course related to the Group Areas Act as well. On page 57 of this report it is stated as follows:

It is suggested that the way in which this should be done is as follows, and I quote again:

They then go on to make their recommendations. According to them the Group Areas Act perpetuates separate residential areas and anything coupled with it. They also say it affords certainty in respect of ownership and of occupation of land, and it is in accordance with the announced policy of the maximum devolution of power to local authorities. In substitution of the police task to apply group areas legislation by government departments, conditions of title could, as provided in section 7 of the Act, be enforced by local authorities in the same manner as conditions of title imposed on township establishment. This, Mr Speaker, is a prostitution of the Deeds Registries Act. I believe it is completely and totally incorrect to use title deeds in order to enforce rights other than ownership rights and definition rights and rights that apply in respect of property and townplanning conditions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with rights as far as individuals are concerned. I therefore make an appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to give attention to this matter.

It is sufficient that the deeds registry office at the present moment has a task which it can hardly fulfil under current circumstances. The amount of work the staff have to do in respect of the rights they have to look after at the moment is already sufficient. If we were to impose this on them we are going to create chaos.

Why should a local authority be responsible for policing the Groups Areas Act? Why pass the buck? It is not necessary for an authority at a lower level to have to do something which the Government itself wishes to impose. I think it is grossly unfair and grossly incorrect that certain people are even suggesting that the deeds registry and title deeds should be used to define who should live in a particular area. I therefore trust that the hon the Deputy Minister, when he replies to this debate, will inform the House that it is not the intention of the Government to use title deeds in order to see to it that the Groups Areas Act be repealed in favour of this particular system.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, when business was interrupted, I was dealing with the question of whether deeds registries should be used for purposes other than for the three main functions applying to a deed. I feel very strongly about the whole question of utilizing a deed in order to perpetuate the provisions of the Group Areas Act. I feel this would be very wrong indeed. The report that I referred to, was the report of the Strydom Commission, but I shall leave the matter at that.

I think that the hon the Deputy Minister will be aware of the tremendous amount of work that requires to be done by the end of the century which this legislation that we are discussing will have to cope with. According to the Commission of Inquiry into Township Establishment, the Venter Commission, whose report was tabled today, it is stated that at the present time there are some 1 670 000 homes in South Africa. This figure is in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Indians and, in addition to this figure, there are also a large number of houses for Blacks. The total number of housing units is 1 987 000. However, between now and the turn of the century the situation will arise where we shall require some 3 500 000 housing units, 55% of which will be for Blacks. This means that almost twice the present total number of housing units will have to be built by the turn of the century, and townships have not yet even been developed for all these housing units. This will require a tremendous amount of work by deeds registries, and I hope the hon the Deputy Minister is preparing for it. In addition, there is also the registration of deeds for business premises and other properties that will have to be attended to. However, I must congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on having introduced this Bill at this stage so as to make provision over the next 20 years to facilitate the registration of all these deeds. Not only will the provision of these 3,5 million housing units present us with a formidable task but we must also remember that the estimated costs in this regard will be something of the order of R82 billion reckoned in 1980 money terms. As I say, this will be a formidable task that this country is going to have to face.

As far as the Bill is concerned, I want to deal specifically with clauses 3, 5 and 9. Up to the present moment, deeds registries for 99-year leases have been established at the office of the Chief Commisioner of the Department of Co-operation and Development. However, the number of registrations up to the present has been comparatively small. In terms of Proclamation No 293 of 1962, the Director General of Co-operation and Development acts essentially as the seller of property as well as the registering officer. The Bill now provides that these two functions will be completely separated since the regulations as they will exist up to the passing of this legislation do not come up to the standards fo impartiality and objectivity demanded by a registering system. I am sure that we are all very grateful for this.

As far as the establishment of registry and subregistry offices are concerned, I should like to deal with the remarks made by the hon member for Barberton who expressed some concern in this regard. It is true that these offices have been in existence at the office of the Chief Commissioner but they have had very little work to do. There certainly would have been chaos had they had to deal with the vast number of registrations that are going to be have to be dealt with in the future. However, I see no harm in this as long as these offices are under the control of the Chief Registrar of Deeds. It will be his job now to ensure administratively that deeds offices are set up where they are required. Knowing the problem, I do not think we need fear that the Chief Registrar of Deeds will allow anything untoward to happen in respect of the proper carrying out of this work. Therefore I want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister sincerely for introducing this Bill and for ensuring that registration will take place under the supervision of a registrar who has the necessary statutory powers to function independently.

This means—other hon members have referred to this already—that all deeds affecting the property of Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks will be registered with the registrar of deeds and that all property owners in future, irrespective of colour, can now rest assured that their property is controlled under one of the best systems of transfer in the world.

I should also like to recommend to the hon the Deputy Minister that this opportunity should not be lost because I think an opportunity should be given to the Chief Registrar to advise self-governing and national states in respect of the system of deeds which is applied in those states so that we can have uniformity within our borders. I am a bit worried that might not happen, and then chaos might result.

I want to talk about the question of endorsement on title deeds. There are some who feel that now that we are starting a new system of registration in respect of Blacks, all that we need is a system of endorsement of deeds. I believe that the present system of the transfer of deeds should remain. It is necessary to have, in the use of a system of the endorsement of deeds, only one property and one owner who must pertain to that. I should like to suggest that the present system should remain and the system of endorsement should not be considered at all because in a deed of transfer, as we have it today, all the relevant endorsements are summarized upon transfer and incorporated into the deed, point by point, and then a new deed is issued. It takes a little longer but certainly it is effective in that it ensures absolute correctness in the transfer of a deed.

It would be wrong at this stage if we do not pay tribute to the other leg which is absolutely necessary to have an effective deeds office. In passing I want to refer to the Surveyor General. Without him one could not have the effective system of deeds registries which we have today. I think that it is absolutely necessary that we should pay tribute to the surveyor-general because it is his work that ensures the integrity of our deeds. One of the reasons why we have this great system in South Africa is that we have the fantastically good work done by the surveyor-general.

In this connection I come to the point mentioned by the hon member for Durban Point when he spoke about the transfer of leasehold properties without having them surveyed. I believe that it is not the intention at all and I believe that it is to the credit of the Department of Community Development that every stand in Black townships is going to be surveyed. Arrangements have been made with the private land surveyors in South Africa and every endeavour is being made to speed this up so that every title deed will show the necessary survey. This might be holding up the registration of thousands of 99-year leases and more so than that the system which we had introduced was ineffective, as the hon member seems to think. The hon the Deputy Minister is to be congratulated on anticipating the completing of the preparatory work prior to the speeding up of the rate of registration once this whole question of surveying has been finalized. I trust that the hon the Deputy Minister will ensure that the registrar will have the necessary staff in order to do all this work.

Next I should like to deal with the question of conveyancing in relation to 99-year leases. As I have just indicated, there will be much work to be done because between now and the turn of the century there will be some 3,5 million new houses built. There will be much work for conveyancers in the future particularly in so far as 99-year leases are concerned. They are the qualified people who can carry out this work effectively. The fees in respect of 99-year lease registration must be moderate in comparison with what they are in respect of the transfer of properties by Whites. Many Blacks should therefore not be faced with high transfer costs in obtaining what will be a prized possession, namely a home of their own under a 99-year lease.

Lastly, I would like to deal with the question of the change-over from leasehold to freehold. Much leasehold still appertains to Whites. Large portions of the Witwatersrand are still subject to leasehold and in Durban in particular, as the hon member for Durban Point has pointed out, large portions of Durban are still held under leasehold, for example along the Marine parade and at May-don Wharf. I do not think that the hon member for Durban Point should be cross with the Durban Corporation for raising the price to what I believe is probably the correct price for 1984. I do sympathize with local authorities, because they may be short of income and this might be a source from which they can increase their revenue. In this particular case, I think the whole question is whether the final values of the leases are correct. This is important, and not the question of the quantity of the increases. I sympathize with the Durban Corporation, because having been involved with local government at one stage, I know that it is very difficult to find sources of revenue. The point that must be taken is whether the rental people are paying now is the correct rental, rather than the question of what the actual increase over the previous one was. We do have an Act in South Africa which allows for the change-over from leasehold to freehold. This Act has been in operation for something like 30 years, and there is therefore, as far as 99-year leasehold is concerned, an opportunity, if the Government wishes to do so, to change over at any time from leasehold to freehold. The legislation authorizing this, is already on the Statute Book. When a government eventually decides to change from leasehold to freehold, there will be no problem as far as the deeds registry office is concerned, because the necessary registration of deeds from leasehold to freehold will be able to be effected.

Mr Speaker, it is very clear to me that the hon member for Bezuidenhout has lost all his sectional titles and deeds between King William’s Town and Bezuidenhout Valley. He is still wandering around amongst the flats in Hillbrow and does not know precisely where he is. I do not know why he had to bring the Group Areas Act into this debate, since no one said anything at all about that. Surely he knows just as well as I do that this matter has been referred to a select committee. Of course, the PFP was at first known only as the Progressive Party, or the PP. They only became the PFP afterwards. I should like to know under which name they are registered at the deeds office. Which property of theirs is registered? The PFP must give us that information today so that we can know how wealthy that party really is.

When one speaks about this Bill, one must realize that this is somewhat of an historical occasion. Tomorrow, 14 April, it will be precisely 327 years ago that the first title deeds for the private ownership of land and property were handed over to people at the Cape. Therefore, 14 April 1657 is the date on which our system of property ownership, as well as our system of the registration of deeds were born. The whole system only really came into its own in 1937, however. If one goes back in history, one finds that registrations took place in Egypt as far back as 3400 BC, and the flood marks of the Nile River were used for measuring purposes. As far back as 3000 BC there was an inscription on someone’s gravestone to the effect that he was burdened with registrations. A pharaoh revealed in 150 BC that a false title deed had been registered.

In 565 AD there were cases where land could physically be handed over, just like immovable property. Land had to be shown to the transferee by the transferor. Even if they had to climb up a tower to point it out, this still had to be done. There were no ceremonies or witnesses. Registration or recording in a register was completely unknown in those days. Movable and immovable property were dealt with on an equal basis.

It was the Germanic peoples who decided on a more ceremonial form of transferring property. The Romans used a scale and weights, but land could not be weighed in that way, of course. The Germanic peoples used a blade of straw or a clod of soil as a symbol. There were different ceremonies in different provinces, where the blade of straw or the clod played a decisive role. The seller repeated the conditions of the sale before witnesses and then threw the blade of straw at the purchaser. In all cases there was a master of ceremonies, and the blade of straw was handed over to the purchaser. With the development of the art of writing towards the 15th century AD, the conditions were written on parchment and each party received a copy of the document. A clod of soil, a blade of staw, or some other symbol was placed on the document, and the master of ceremonies then threw the document up into the air as a symbol that the sale was being announced in public.

In the eighth century there was a judge who made the announcement and who held the documents on high. It was interesting to discover that even in Biblical times Jeremiah purchased a piece of land. We find the following in Jeremiah 32:

One can therefore see how long deeds of purchase have existed. Whilst considering all these things, I wish to refer in conclusion to what Jan van Riebeeck said on 14 April 1657. That was when the Free Burghers established themselves in agriculture. This is of great significance to our system of registration, since when they became free the private ownership of land came into being for the first time in the Cape. Private freehold of land creates the need to transfer land from one person to another at some stage, and in turn, this leads to the need to safeguard freehold and the official and public recognition and protection of that transfer and ownership.

Each time one reads about these matters and goes back in history, one feels that they are part of our land. Even Jan van Riebeeck was quite active, since, through his wife, he raised seven mortgage bonds on his land during his time. He himself gave attention to this matter because it was important. To me it is important that love for the land was ultimately displayed through this. With reference to our present system of registration, the matter is put much clearer than I could put it in a report I have here with me. I am referring to the second report of the Commission of Inquiry into Township Establishment and Related Matters, in which it is stated:

We can therefore say with great joy “O, Boereplaas, geboortegrond, ons het jou lief bo alles”, since not only do we love the land, but also our fatherland, the Republic of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to all the hon members who have taken part in this debate and who have supported the Second Reading. Several good speeches were made and this, of necessity, attests to a sound knowledge of what goes on in the deeds offices as such. In the first place I want to extend my most cordial thanks to the hon member for Rosettenville for the contribution he made and the historical survey he provided of the development that took place in regard to the registration of deeds whereby certainty was assured as far as property rights are concerned. Looking at the history of the matter one can add to that fine exposition, as a matter of interest, that there was a time when the church bell had to ring three times to call the people together so as to give notice of certain property transactions that had taken place, and this served as sufficient notice of the fact that the right of ownership had been transferred from one person to another. All this formed part of a process whereby to establish a very good system.

The Department of Community Development recognizes that in this process the Deeds Registries Act will have to undergo certain changes in future. Moreover, an intensive investigation has already been ordered into the restructuring of the whole Deeds Registries Act to adjust to changed circumstances and to accommodate the changes that must take place. I think it is as well that I should say right at the outset, in order to eliminate any misunderstanding, that a process is under way whereby consideration is being given to the effecting of changes with a view to present circumstances.

Several arguments have been advanced as to how certain problems are to be dealt with. The hon member for Gezina referred specifically to the time taken from the submission of registration until it has taken place. He also referred inter alia to the time taken for delivery of the document. In this regard he quoted certain figures. Other hon members, too, made special reference to this and to delays that take place, delays that may vary depending on the number of deeds that have to be processed. I believe that the hon member for Hillbrow, among others, referred to this specific point. The time taken for registration also varies among the existing deeds offices. In the circumstances referred to by the hon member for Gezina the backlog in Pretoria on 31 January 1984 is 11 days. At the end of February, a month later, it dropped from 11 days to six days and on 9 April, a week later, registration took about 10 days.

Is that for the Pretoria office?

Yes. The office where the longest delays occur at this stage is Johannesburg; in January it took 38 days to register a deed. On 17 April this period had dropped to 17 days. At all the other offices it takes between six and nine days to register a deed, but I am of the opinion that if one takes into account the quantity of the work, this period cannot really be regarded as a delay. Indeed, excellent work is being done.

Let us also consider the position with regard to the period between registration and the delivery of the document. This period is longest in Pretoria, viz 45 days. This creates a major problem. Arrangements have already been made with Mr Du Toit, the Chief Registrar of Deeds, to instal additional machines for microfilming of the documentation. The four new machines envisaged will result in delivery being expedited. As far as the offices at Kimberley, King William’s Town and Vryburg are concerned, the period of delivery is one day; in Bloemfontein it is three days and in Pietermaritzburg, eight days. It takes longer in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Pretoria. I have already indicated that procedures are being speeded up in those offices as well.

As regards the employment of qualified officials to expedite the delivery of deeds, negotiations have taken place between the staff of the Deeds Office and the Defence Force to determine to what extent religious objectors or national servicemen may be utilized in this process. As regards the national servicemen I may mention—the hon member for Vasco and other hon members have also referred to this—that the service to be rendered requires high efficiency and specialized knowledge. The period that will be available as far as ordinary national servicemen are concerned will not be sufficient to render good service. Therefore we have resorted to investigating the possibility of religious objectors performing the task. We are informed that a regulation was promulgated on 20 March specifically in order to provide that the first of those national servicemen may be incorporated for employment and assistance at deeds offices. We hope that this will help to expedite matters in the deeds offices. The hon member for Hillbrow raised another matter, too, but I think that it has already been covered in the converse of the reply I have just furnished.

I also wish to refer to a few other arguments that have been raised. In the fast place I want to refer to the praise accorded to the staff of deeds offices for the service they render. As I did in my initial Second Reading speech, I wish to reiterate at this point that the service rendered by these people is worthy of only the highest praise.

The hon member for Hillbrow referred to “leasehold” and “freehold”, as did the hon member for Durban Point and the hon member for Bezuidenhout. The Government has decided to grant leasehold to Black people in Black urban areas but is not, however, prepared at this stage to grant them the right of ownership per se. That is the policy and the approach of the Government, but in my opinion it is not relevant to this Bill, because this legislation concerns the implementation of a policy defined in other legislation. This also applies in respect of leasehold in Khayelitsha, to which the hon member for Hillbrow referred. This, too, is not relevant to this Bill but would be relevant to a discussion of Government policy. I think that the hon member for Vasco replied to the hon member for Hillbrow on that score and therefore I shall not take the point any further.

Mr Speaker, may I put it to the hon the Deputy Minister that yesterday I read in a newspaper that the Government is prepared to give freehold title in a Black township outside Pinetown? Is that correct?

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to discuss the question of leasehold and freehold in this debate. If I were to discuss the matter to which the hon member is referring now it could cause a misunderstanding in regard to other areas. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Hillbrow also referred to the question of the divisional council at Sedgefield, which is involved in township development. A certain principle is being followed in the Cape Province and the divisional councils provided certain services. The fact that they provide that community with a service by becoming involved in township development is in accordance with the principle of this legislation. If they have ownership rights then it is provided in the clause at present under discussion that such land may be transferred by way of endorsement. I believe that the principle as to whether or not they may acquire such land is not relevant now, and accordingly I do not wish to deal with it now.

According to my notes I have now replied to all the matters raised by the hon member for Hillbrow, except one, This relates to the issue of deeds offices which are to be established in Soweto, for example. As far as this is concerned, I wish to associate myself with what the hon member for Barberton said when he was discussing clause 1.

The department is of the opinion that by way of the amendments proposed in this Bill we are making it possible for the registration of leasehold rights to proceed as smoothly as possible in terms of legislation relating to the development of Black communities. The object is that we should not create obstacles which would make it difficult for Parliament to effect statutory amendments if problems were to arise in future. If we were to accept the amendments proposed by the hon member for Durban Point, viz that we should first give notice of the amendment we want to effect, that could be time-consuming.

If we were to incorporate the standpoint of the hon member for Barberton—or rather, of the CP—in the legislation by indicating where such points should be, this could give raise to such a time-consuming procedure that the registration of leasehold and the acquisition of leasehold rights by the Blacks would be delayed still further in these circumstances. If that were to happen it could create uncertainty in the minds of those people as regards the preparedness and the earnest desire of the Government to allow the transfer of certain rights to Black people to take place. Accordingly this could only create further problems for us. For that reason the Government is not prepared to effect such an amendment. As soon as there was a possibility of doing away with an office in a certain area, that would affect not only the attorneys in that area but also the officials concerned with the deeds office there. The area where the deeds office concerned is situated could also be vexed by social problems.

The general standpoint of the Government, not only with regard to this matter but also with regard to agriculture and all other matters, is that the widest possible consultation must take place. After consultation, and after the opinions of all those involved have been obtained, the Government will have to decide what is right or wrong in the specific circumstances in order to achieve the aim it has set itself. Therefor I want to put it to hon member for Durban Point and the hon member for Barberton that in terms of the standpoint of the Government as I have just explained it, during the Committee Stage we shall not accept the amendments of which they have given notice. In terms of the policy of the Government we should prefer to adopt the course of having the widest possible consultation in order to become acquainted with the true problems of the people in the areas in question.

As far as this specific aspect is concerned I just wish to point out in conclusion that I believe it would be wrong of us always to incorporate in legislation the principle of procedures to be followed, particularly since it is possible to conduct affairs on the basis I have just explained.

The hon member for Vasco made a very sound contribution. He also asked a question concerning the making available of Defence Force staff to assist in deeds offices. Of course, he himself is an attorney and while he was making his speech here it struck me—I say this merely in passing, and in a lighter vein—that what he was really proposing as a possible solution to this problem was that the Defence Force be requested to call up more attorneys who could perhaps be used to furnish assistance at deeds offices while performing their national service. Perhaps that is not quite such an unacceptable idea, but I should refer to leave it at that because I should prefer not to have the attorneys up in arms against me. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, it is really remarkable to see how sensitive some people are sometimes, particularly those in this House who always have elections on their minds. Everything they say and do is geared to elections. [Interjections.] We, of course, believe that things should be done correctly, whether or not there is an election in the offing. [Interjection.]

I should now like to refer to the speech of the hon member for Durban Point. He advanced a few arguments which, as I see it, were not wholly concerned with the legislation as such. Nevertheless I should like to react to them. I have already explained to the hon member for Hillbrow the position in regard to leasehold and freehold. However, I just wish to say to the hon member for Durban Point that in the process of registration we have the principle of either a short-term lease or a long-term lease. In our legal system we have provided that a long-term lease may also be registered.

For 10 years or longer.

That is correct. In principle, however, this is not necessarily a leasehold. One must draw a distinction between a long-term lease which is longer than 10 years, and leasehold. The principle incorporated in the Black Communities Development Board is that of a 99 year leasehold. That legislation makes specific provision for the way in which the 99-year leasehold system will be dealt with, and the principle of sectional titles is not at issue here. In this regard I refer the hon member to section 55(1)(j) of that Act which reads as follows:

Section 55 of that Act makes specific provision for the registration of sectional leases. As I interpreted the remarks of the hon member for Durban Point, his objection is not, therefore, applicable, viz that provision should not be made for sectional leases in these circumstances as in the case in Durban. I want to point out to the hon member that sectional leases can only be granted to a competent person. While I am referring to a competent person I also wish to refer to a point raised by another hon member, viz whether a Black city council may have the right—perhaps it was also the hon member for Durban Point—to acquire property in terms of clause 4 of the Bill we are discussing at present. The definition of “competent person” in the Black Communities Development Act does not include a Black town council. It means a person referred to in section 52(2). That section reads inter alia as follows:

Leasehold may be acquired by—

1. (a) A Black referred to in section 10(1)(a) or (b) of the Black (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945 (Act No 25 of 1945), who is not a Black referred to in section 12(1) of that Act:
2. (b) the wife or partner in a customary union of a person contemplated in paragraph (a) upon the decease of such person;

Then follows four other categories. In none of these paragraphs is it specifically mentioned that a Black town council will have the right in these specific circumstances to acquire that right of ownership. The fact that clause 4 of the Bill we are discussing at present provides that all the land acquired in these circumstances may be transferred by endorsement is not relevant here. Accordingly I just want to say in that regard that that interpretation of whether this can happen or not, is in my opinion a matter that falls under the legislation relating to Black urban areas rather than this legislation. All we ought to discuss in this instance in a technical legal sense is the question whether a competent person may acquire land or not. The interpretation as to whether or not someone is a competent person, falls under a different Act, not this one.

The point is that all the land is being transferred to a different authority.

If the hon member for Durban Point had ascertained why that clause appeared there, he would have known that the aim was to save expenses in regard to the transfer of property from one Government institution to another Government institution. If the other Government institution had all the land at its disposal the transfer could be effected by way of endorsement. If part of the land did not belong to it and was in the possession of a private owner, then the transfer would be effected in the Deeds Office by way of the normal procedure that has always been followed in the past. That is the principle involved here.

Mr Speaker, I want to put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister. If the land of an administration board is transferred to a Black city council for the purposes of the Black city council and not for the provision of housing thereon by the development board, would that be a transfer of all land for the purposes of the Bill?

In this instance the question is whether the right of ownership can be transferred or not. The decision as to whether a Black city council has the right of ownership is a matter that falls under different legislation. The question is whether it is competent to acquire the right of ownership, and that question must be settled in terms of other legislation. The only point that is at issue in this legislation is the following: If it is a competent person, what is the procedure to be followed? That is the principle I am trying to outline. The hon member’s question involves a political decision that has to be taken at a different level.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question, and in this regard I refer him to section 34 of the Black Communities Development Act. In that Act it is provided that when a Black city council is established, all the land belonging to an administration board—now, of course, it is a development board—is transferred to the State, to be administered by the Minister. All the open land within the area of jurisdiction of such a Black city council is, however, transferred to the Black city council. It seems to me that it is the property that belongs to the administration board which is then divided. The one part is transferred to the State under the control of the Minister, while the open land is transferred to the Black city council. I should like to know whether the hon the Deputy Minister has taken that provision into account in the consideration of this specific clause of the Bill.

What I am trying to convey to the hon member is that this is a principle which belongs under a different Act. What is at issue here is only whether it is a competent body or person, and if it is, the procedure prescribed in this Bill must be followed. Sir, if you want to permit us to discuss the principles of other legislation then I do not believe that this belongs under the discussion of this Bill. However, I leave that decision in your hands, although I can answer questions in this regard from hon members.

Our questions concern the method.

With all respect to the hon member for Durban Point, the method is surely spelt out very clearly. If all the land is owned by a divisional council or a local authority which in those circumstances would be competent to own it, then it could be transferred. I believe that that is the relevant principle.

As regards the other arguments that have been advanced, I should like to reply to a request made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth North. It concerns the situation of certain offices. The hon member specifically asked for an office to be situated in Port Elizabeth. I shall let the undertaking I have given, suffice, viz that as far as the establishment or closure of offices by the Government is concerned, we shall follow a certain procedure. People will be consulted in this process and requests such as those made by the hon member will be dealt with in that way. However, I take cognizance of the specific representations made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth North concerning Port Elizabeth as a centre where there will be many transactions.

I think I have now replied to the arguments advanced by most hon members who took part in the debate. It is a privilege for me to submit this Bill to the House, particularly since it enjoys the support of all the various parties.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

I think it is appropriate that we should conclude the first half of this session with an interesting and pleasant subject.

The Bill which is before the House affects only two principles of the Acts that are to be amended. In the first place, it deals with the regulation of the circumstances under which grapes as such are sold to distillers and licensed persons, and in the second place, it provides for the creation of a new product in order to adapt to the changing needs of the wine industry.

Unfortunately, the rules of this House do not allow me to show hon members samples of this new product which we shall be discussing this afternoon, so I shall merely give hon members the following explanation. On 15 April last year, during the discussion of the Wine and Spirits Control Amendment Bill, I pointed out that the KWV, the KWK, the KWSI and the independent grape producers were at my request working out a more flexible formula for determining the quantity of grapes which could be sold by wine producers to distillers and licensed persons every year. These interested parties arrived at an acceptable solution which was submitted to me and which I accepted.

At present the Act provides for a so-called surplus contribution to be paid on all distilling wine sold to distillers. Because grapes sold to distillers and licensed persons are good wine in terms of the definition in the Act, no surplus contribution has ever been levied on such grapes.

In practice, however, it is impossible to use all juice or wine made from grapes as good wine, and some of it has to be used as distilling wine.

In the course of the discussions to which I have just referred, it appeared that producers who sold grapes to wholesale traders were not treated in the same way as other wine producers, since no surplus contribution was payable on the distilling wine portion. The intention with the amending Bill is to remove that anomaly and to provide, on the basis of the position in practice, that approximately 8% of the wine obtained from red grape cultivars, and approximately 18% of the wine obtained from any other grape cultivare, is deemed to be distilling wine, on which portion a surplus contribution will then be payable.

Mr Speaker, the Wine and Spirits Control Act of 1970, as amended, and the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act of 1957, as amended, provide which types of wine, brandy and spirits may be manufactured and sold in the Republic. If any need arises for a new type of product, the Acts in question have to be amended.

An urgent need has now arisen for provision to be made for a new product in order to authorize its manufacture and distribution. This product is flavoured wine.

Provision is made in legislation at the moment for the manufacture and sale of wines such as ginger wine, vermouth and wine aperitifs, over and above natural unfortified wines. The definition of these types of unfortified wine does not provide for the addition of flavourings obtained from fresh or dried fruit, for example, or for the natural alcohol produced in wine by the fermentation of must from fresh grapes to be reduced by the addition of reconstituted must concentrate.

As hon members may know, ginger wine has appeared on the SA market and is extremely popular among consumers. There is an evident need for flavoured wine which should include flavourings other than ginger. The wine industry also agrees that provision should be made for a flavoured wine with a lower alcohol content to be made available to the consumer. In addition, the wine industry in South Africa is proud of the high quality and tradition of natural and other wines produced in this country and no one would like the good reputation of our wines to be harmed. Therefore flavoured wine should not be regarded as a substitute for wine as such, but as a new type of product which is being created to meet consumer needs. In order to preserve this important distinction, measures must be introduced, on the one hand, to exercise stringent control over production processes, and on the other hand, strict control must be exercised over marketing, and in particular the labelling of containers, by providing, for example, that “flavoured wine” must be clearly indicated in the name.

†Flavoured wine will be manufactured from wine, but provision is made for the addition of substances thereto as may be provided for by regulation. These substances may include for instance concentrated must which has been reconstituted in order to sweeten the product and lessen the alcohol content thereof to not less than 6,5% alcohol by volume. The product may also be flavoured with natural aromatic flavouring such as fresh or dried fruit, herbs, roots etc. Flavoured wine may also be surcharged with carbon dioxide as is done in the case of perlé wine.

Mr Speaker, the wine industry is capable of producing a quality flavoured wine and there is no reason why the public should be denied this very delectable wine beverage.

As I mentioned earlier, this product will in practice be manufactured inter alia by the addition of a concentrate of grape juice, that is, moskonfyt which has been reconstituted. The Wine and Spirit Control Act, 1970, presently provides that the minimum good-wine price is also applicable to moskonfyt. However, in order to make this product available to the public at a reasonable price, it is necessary for the Minister of Agriculture to be able to approve a lower price for moskonfyt. As it would in practice not be possible to control two different prices for moskonfyt, that is, one price in respect of flavoured wine and another price in respect of the sweetening of natural wine, the wine industry is of the opinion that only one price should be established for moskonfyt. Provision is now being made in the Bill for the Minister to approve a lower price for moskonfyt than the price for natural wine.

The Bill also provides for consequential amendments, one of which is that the General Manager of the KWV be designated as Administering Officer for the purpose of controlling flavoured wine. In terms of the Wine and Spirit Control Act, 1970, the KWV is already responsible for control of all distilling and good wine on all premises where such wine is made or found. The KWV is therefore in a good position to exercise the very necessary control over flavoured wine. The other consequential amendment is to empower the Minister of Agriculture to promulgate the necessary regulations for the orderly control of the manufacture of flavoured wine.

I hope that, after we have passed this Bill and we have this new product on the market, members of the House will enjoy it.

Mr Speaker, as is customary on this side of the House where we believe in the freedom of conscience, members of our party did not take a caucus decision on our standpoint towards this Bill. Consequently I want to inform hon members opposite, who do not enjoy the same freedom, of our standpoint.

In an article in the supplement to Die Burger this morning I read under the heading “Dankie tog vir al die wyn-LVs”:

The point which the author is making in a lighter vein, is that there is a very powerful wine lobby in the House. I believe we should accept it as a fact. I believe we should point out, particularly, to the people in the National Party, their responsibility not only towards the wine farmers, but towards our country and people as a whole.

Unfortunately the hon member for Albany could not be here this afternoon and for that reason the major party of my speech will actually represent his hard work. I am very glad to support the standpoint which he adopts. He reminds us once again that this is a matter for one’s own conscience.

†Basically the Bill seeks to do three things. It seeks to release the sale of moskonfyt from the minimum price provision of the old Act. It seeks to amend the regulations with regard to certain levies applied to the supply of grapes to wholesalers, and it seeks to amend the original Act to cater for a new class of flavoured wines, that is wines flavoured with material which is not the product of the grape. I have no quarrel with the first two provisions but I do have a problem with the third.

Let us look very briefly at the history of control in the wine industry in so far as it is relevant to the Bill. The control of the industry is basically in the hands of the KWV, an independent legal body. This body has been entrusted with administering the affairs of the industry to the benefit of the producer and the consumer alike—perhaps I may add, I think to the benefit of the producer most of all. The three most important functions of the KWV are the control of minimum prices, the control of quality and the control of quantity. The control of quality is all-important. It is not being left to the whim of the KWV. So important did Parliament consider this matter that it passed an Act, the Wine and Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act of 1957, to lay down certain specified standards in order to control quality. Thus, for example, the minimum alcohol content is regulated by law, and it becomes an offence to adulterate wine with any substance not specified in the Act without the approval of the Minister. The result of these stringent regulations has been that the standard of South African wines has improved tremendously over the years, and today many of our wines enjoy an international reputation for quality, bouquet and purity. So jealously have producers and consumers guarded this reputation for quality that they have attempted to elevate wine above the point where it is merely an alcoholic beverage. Good wines have, it is claimed, become part of our cultural heritage and tradition. During a previous debate concerning the marketing of wine, speakers who supported the measure promoted this claim. It was suggested that we were actually doing consumers a favour by making this cultural tradition more readily available to them. One speaker actually invoked the Calvinist ethic in support of his plea. In short, for many years now the wine industry has been at pains to cultivate an image of quality and sophistication: Good wine for the good quality of life. It therefore comes as something of a shock to read that the custodians of this cultural heritage, those keepers of what has been described as the noble product of the vine, now seek to debase their product by adulterating it with guavas, bananas, pineapples and heaven knows what else, perhaps even cocoa beans and chocolate. Who knows? [Interjections.] Why? The hon the Minister stated the reason in his Second Reading speech. I believe it is the ultimate distortion when he says:

That is absolute drivel. The hon the Minister should be ashamed of making a statement like that. It compromises his position as a Minister of this House because obviously that is a marketing statement for the KWV. The question is: Why will it be argued that this development enhances the quality of the product? Will those wine experts who sniff their wine so seriously and roll it around on their tongues and twitch their noses, now be given a new dimension in which to exercise their talents? Will we be making an even greater cultural tradition available at every supermarket and corner grocery store? Of course not! Adulteration is being done purely and simply in order to increase consumption and, by increasing consumption, to increase the profits of the producers, no more and no less! I do not believe that anyone should be fooled by the nonsense we have heard about this this afternoon. [Interjections.] The facts of the matter are that there is a surplus of wine on the market. Because of difficulties being experienced with exports of wine spirit to the EEC, producers are sitting with a problem of overproduction. An outlet for this surplus is now being sought. [Interjections.] The obvious solution is to increase consumption on the domestic market. Unfortunately—and the hon the Deputy Minister hinted at that—most of the surplus grapes are not of the highest quality. This means that lower quality wines will have to be marketed instead. Fortunately, when one is going to mix guavas, strawberries and the rest with one’s wine, its bouquet does not really matter all that much, but who then is going to drink the stuff, our custodians of the noble cultural tradition? Not likely! Let Rapport pick up the story because they let the cat out of the bag. In Rapport of 1 April 1984, under the heading “Gegeurde wyne op pad” we read the following:

Wyn sal dan met enigiets soos byvoorbeeld piesang, pynappel, koejawel, en met ’n magdom ander geursels opgekikker kan word, en die verwagting is dat dié soort produk veral groot byval by die Swartman sal vind.

According to Rapport the idea comes from America where pop wines, as they are called there, changed the drinking habits of large numbers of Coca Cola and beer drinkers. The point is that people who had not been drinking alcoholic beverages, got hooked on these pop wines. I think the hon the Deputy Minister should tell us “of hy die wyne gaan opkikker met Coca Cola en dan het ons Coca Cola-wyn” [Interjections.] Once the people in America got hooked on pop wine, says Rapport, many switched to the more conventional wines. However, some doubt exists as to whether this will happen here. Rapport states in this regard:

[Interjections.]

The other provision in the Bill seeks to lower the alcohol content from the present required 12,6% to 6%. Why is this being done? This will doubtless have the effect of giving flavoured wine the semblance of a rather harmless cooldrink. We will then be able to stock our fridges with an alcoholic beverage which looks like fruit juice and tastes like fruit juice because the aim is to take the wine taste away.

Mr Speaker, can the hon member tell me how much Ginger Fizz he has in his refrigerator at the moment?

Mr Speaker, I actually do not like ginger beer but I have several containers of Liquifruit and Ceres Fruit, which is infinitely cheaper than beer and wine. I also have some white wine in a bottle in my fridge. [Interjections.] Yes, it is in Liquifruit and Ceres Fruit form. Therefore I should suggest that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs establishes a fruit juice plant in the Northern Transvaal instead of having an eye on the establishment of a wine cellar. It would be much better for the country and it would be in the national interest.

Have diesel flavoured wine which you can feed to trucks! [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members should not allow this debate to go to their heads.

Mr Speaker, the other lucrative market—apart from the Black market—is likely to be the youth of our country. What adult—and this is a question I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to answer—who drinks wine is going to switch from Pinotage to pineapple, from Stein to strawberry? No, it will be the teenagers in the White, Coloured and Black societies who will be the new target of liquor advertisements. We can just imagine the cry: “Party time is pop wine time!” [Interjections.] Yes, we will all be told to drink beverages of this nature. We will soon be shown adverts of elated teenagers swinging farm fresh strawberries—wine without which the good life is impossible. [Interjections.] The attitude of hon members supporting this Bill will be: “So what!” Moreover I will doubtlessly be accused of paternalism. Who am I, it will be asked, to tell people what they may or may not mix with alcohol in order to make it more appetising and appealing? Who am I to stand between wine producers and their profits?

My answer is that I am nobody but a concerned South African citizen, who looks at what alcohol is doing to our people, and I am shocked and alarmed. [Interjections.] I read that one is every 10 South Africans has a drinking problem. I also read that we have one of the highest crime rates in the world, with violent crimes such as rape, stabbing and assault predominating, and that alcohol is one of the major contributing factors to this crime figure. I read that we have one of the highest divorce rates in the world, and that alcohol is again one of the major contributing factors. I read these things, Mr Speaker, and I ask whether we have gone mad. Are we in our right senses when we set out deliberately to encourage people to become consumers of a harmful drug? Are we in our right senses when we spend millions of rand every year in order to promote this drug?

Soap box speech?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Turffontein shouts: “Soap box speech”. Let him go to the casualty section of the Groot Schuur or the Tygerberg Hospital and see the people who are brought in, and analyze the fact that 70% of all those miserable patients are the victims of alcohol abuse. Then let him get on to his soap box! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, are we in our right senses when we set out deliberately to encourage people to become consumers of a dangerous drug? Are we in our right senses when we spend millions of rand every year in order to promote that drug? Are we in our right senses when we tempt people to use a product which causes such misery and suffering, particularly amongst those least able, on account of their circumstances, to resist it? Now we have a further attempt to encourage the consumption of alcohol by changing its flavour in order to make it resemble a health-giving fruit cool-drink. Again I ask whether we have gone mad. Or have we just allowed our single-minded pursuit of profits so to deaden our social conscience that we can laugh it off and call people who have a social conscience paternalistic?

Mr Speaker, I am no better than the next man. [Interjections.] I do not sit in judgment over anyone. I do, however, have a conscience with which I must live. That conscience tells me that what we are doing actively to promote the consumption of alcohol is wrong. It tells me that it is immoral to suggest to people that unless they consume alcohol they cannot be successful, they cannot be attractive, they cannot be happy, they cannot be sexy and they cannot be strong; that unless they consume alcohol they cannot enjoy life. My conscience tells me that it is wrong so to adulterate and disguise the flavour of alcohol that people will be tempted to consume it at the peril of becoming addicted to it at a time in their lives or in a stage of their development when they are unable fully to understand what is being done to them. If this makes me paternalistic, then so be it. I am paternalistic, but I would rather be so than be party to passing this legislation before us today. It is obvious to me that some hon members opposite are rather annoyed at some of the things I have said, and we should try to agree in regard to a few matters. What can we actually agree on?

Just for the record, not only hon members opposite but also behind you!

Very well, hon members in this House. [Interjections.] What can we agree on? The first thing is that the grape farmers of this country make an important contribution towards our economy and there is no reason why they should be allowed to collapse. However, there is also no reason why they should not be allowed to diversify into something other than wine production. I do not think anybody disputes that. Secondly, I am sure we can agree that the public of this country are entitled to purchase alcoholic beverages if they so wish. Alcoholic beverages are a fact of life, people like them, and they are part of our social life. The third point that we can all agree on is the fact that alcohol abuse is a problem and that alcoholism is an expensive disease. I think that we can all agree in regard to these three points, even the hon member for Wynberg.

No, not necessarily at all. [Interjections.]

How do we actually ensure that the economy supported by the wine farmer does not go into decline or is not destroyed? We have to ensure that if the public choose to, they must have access to alcoholic beverages, and we still have to deal with the abuse of alcohol.

The concern of those of us who are opposed to this Bill is that we must accept the fact that alcoholism is a social problem. We should firstly therefore limit its availability and secondly also limit the promotion of what is potentially a socially dangerous product.

To what extent?

To this extent, Sir. Why did we find that the incidence of motor-car accidents declined as a result of a television campaign pointing out the dangers of drinking and driving? There was a direct correlation between the number of accidents over the Christmas period last year and those television advertisements, and that is a fact. I also personally strongly believe that the advertising and promotion of liquor by making it a glamorous and dramatic feature, which in a sense we are trying to do by means of this Bill, is something that should be limited and controlled. The wine farmers should also be made to understand that he is not going to be allowed at will to pour his wine lake down the throats of the people of South Africa. He has to learn to diversify. We as members of this House, and particularly the hon the Minister of Agriculture and his deputies, have a responsibility to find ways to enable those farmers to diversify. They can take up pig farming, table grape production or other forms of fruit farming so that they do not continue to produce surpluses of wine that have to be forced down the throats of the people of this country just because there is a powerful wine lobby in this House.

In case members have not understood sufficiently, I want to make it quite clear that I shall be opposing this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I listened to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, and as a responsible wine farmer I shall be replying to his speech. I am telling him that quite bluntly, man to man.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member who is now speaking is the chairman of the organization which has a vested interest in this, and is it therefore in order for him to participate in this debate?

Order! The hon member is addressing the House as the hon member for Ceres and may proceed.

Sir, I repeat that I shall be replying to the hon member as a responsible wine farmer with a conscience, a wine farmer who lives according to the dictates of his conscience, because on that farm viticulture has been practised for seven generations now. In the course of my contribution I shall try to respond to what the hon member said and the allegation he levelled at the wine industry.

I want to thrash this matter out. As the hon the Deputy Minister has indicated, there are two basic amendments in the measure before the House, ie an amended procedure for the purchasing of grapes by producer-wholesalers from wine farmers and an amendment facilitating the production and marketing of flavoured wine. Both these amendments are the result of intensive investigations and lengthy negotiations on the part of all interest groups in the wine industry, not only the producer interest groups, but also all wholesale interest groups that also have retail interests in the country.

Order! Hon members must not converse so loudly.

With the full approval and co-operation of all parties involved in the wine industry, we have this Bill before us. Hon members on this side of the House will deal with the proposed arrangements for the purchasing of grapes, while I want to confine myself more specifically to the reasons leading up to the production of flavoured wines and determining the needs.

The wine industry in South Africa, as elsewhere in the world, has one chief characteristic, and that is continual innovation, diversification and a broadening of the spectrum of the wines offfered in the wine markets. This process of product development is a completely natural one which has two basic points of departure: In the first place to satisfy the consumer’s taste and any changes in his taste, and secondly to ensure that the wine producer has an ever-widening and growing market.

Let us test these two premises in the light of the overall argument I am going to present to the House. The reason leading up to the legislation on flavoured wine is that there is a growing market for ginger wine in this country, something the hon the Deputy Minister also referred to. Throughout the rest of the wine-producing world, in all the other acknowledged wine-producing countries, the marketing of flavoured wine has proved a success story. So there is surely nothing strange in all these factors engendering, in the wine farmers and the wine traders in South Africa, new ideas about being able to produce and market flavoured wine here.

That is the reason why, in the past two years, there have been intensive investigations into the production and marketing of flavoured wines in the industry. The regulations for the production and the marketing practices in regard to flavoured wines in other wine-producing countries were investigated in depth. Market research was done about the acceptability of flavoured wines in South Africa itself. In-depth negotiations were conducted on the regulations for the production of flavoured wines in our country. All these negotiations and investigative work were done by all the interest groups in the wine industry. It was therefore a joint effort on the part of all the interest groups in the wine industry that gave rise to this legislation. An in-depth, reflective analysis was also made of the influence that the marketing of flavoured wines could have on the quality image of vintage wines in our country. The end result of this thorough investigation, these oftentimes difficult negotiations, is embodied in the measure before the House. I therefore want to emphasize that this measure is the result of intensive investigations and well-considered planning, on the part of the industry as a whole, over an extensive period. As a wine farmer I am convinced that this measure is placing the production of and control over flavoured wines in South Africa on a sound and well-considered footing. As a wine farmer I also want to say quite frankly that I believe that the basis asdopted is one that creates confidence because it is well-ordered one, and peace of mind because it is justified in the eyes of all parties concerned.

I put this standpoint with the utmost conviction and resolve, and I specifically do so for the following good reasons: According to these provisions flavoured wine is and will remain a natural agricultural product. The basis is high-quality natural wine, and I reject, with contempt, the reference here to low-quality wines being used for flavoured wines. It is sweetened and diluted with pure, concentrated grape juice. It is also flavoured with natural, pure fruit juice and is therefore a natural agricultural product. Flavoured wine, manufactured in accordance with these provisions, can make a decisive contribution to the establishment of an acceptable drinking pattern in South Africa, a drinking pattern based chiefly on the use of fighter types of alcohol. The minimum prescribed alcohol content of flavoured wine is 6,5% by volume. Flavoured wine made according to these provisions cannot confuse or mislead the consumer, because the words “flavoured wine” must be clearly visible on the label. The regulations for producing the product will effectively be controlled by the KWV. This body has years of experience of similar functions that it has successfully carried out. The consumer will therefore be assured, at all times, that what he is getting is flavoured wine.

I should like to dwell on a certain aspect. I should like to say something about the consumer. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North quoted from a report in Rapport in which it was said that the product was aimed at the Black market. The wine farmers and wine traders of South Africa have always, in the planning and production of a product, had the overall South African wine market in mind, and not specifically the Black market or the White market. I therefore reject the assertain that this product is going to be manufactured with an eye on the Black market. It is aimed at the overall wine market in South Africa. That must be very clearly understood.

According to research into the history of flavoured wines in other wine-producing countries, the marketing of flavoured wines will have no significantly detrimental effect on the high-quality image of our vintage wines. Flavoured wine will be a stimulating and interesting natural drink in our warm climate. The product will have a distinctive wine character, with a subtle but pungent fruit taste with a carbon dioxide tingle. The overall impression left by this product will be such as to make it very sought-after amongst South African consumers. The experimental products I have already tasted leave me in no doubt about this statement being proved correct. The need that exists for such a wine product is clearly illustrated by the success achieved in the marketing of ginger wine in South Africa over the past two years. That is a given and proven fact. If a product such as ginger wine could achieve such a degree of market penetration in such a short time, there should also be a growing market for similar products. The need for flavoured wine in the wine market is also clearly endorsed by the data from overseas wine-producing countries. From official statistics, the total consumption of vermouth and flavoured wines in France amounts to approximately 75 million litres per year; in Italy, approximately 200 million litres, and in the USA approximately 100 million litres. Over and above that, in 1982 France exported 25 million litres, and Italy exported 32 million litres. In contrast, Germany imports approximately 5 million litres annually. Why must South Africa, the South African consumer, be denied this product?

Owing to a lack of specific definitions and regulations governing flavoured wines in the EEC, draft legislation was submitted in 1982 to place the matter on a firm footing. The chief motivation for this process of regulating the provisions for flavoured wines involves the economic importance of this product in the wine-producing countries of the EEC. The reason is obvious. This product represents an extremely important extension in marketing outlets for the wine farmer of the EEC countries.

It is also my honest conviction that this product will create an important, growing marketing outlet for the products of the wine farmers of the Western Cape. I am saying this honestly and bluntly. At present the wine farmers of the Western Cape urgently need a broadening or extension in the wine market. I am convinced that flavoured wines will prove to be the stimulus for a growing wine market. At present there is an imbalance between the production and marketing of wine. The imbalance is the result of increased production, as a result of favourable climatic conditions, enriched plant material and improved production techniques on the one hand, and on the other a levelling off in the marketing of wine as a result of poor economic conditions having a damping effect.

In order to ensure stability in the wine industry it is vital to extend the spectrum of wine products, once again, in order to invest the market place with growth possibilities or growth potential. That is one of the reasons why this measure is now before the House.

We, as wine farmers, own the hon the Minister of Agriculture a great vote of thanks for having been able to prepare and submit this Bill in a relatively short of time. We express our sincere thanks and appreciation for his understanding of and sensitivity to our problems in the wine industry.

I want to conclude with some incidental remarks that bring me back to the allegations made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. It has always been a characteristic of the wine industry that by its own initiative and enterprise it has been able to put its own house in order. Wine farmers have always shown themselves able to discipline themselves in problematic situations and have also shown that they can solve their problems by joint action. We are grateful to the State for wanting to give us an opportunity, by way of this legislation, to solve our problems in this natural way and, at the same time, likewise affording the consumers of South Africa a larger choice of wine products.

At the same time we accept, as responsible citizens and as wine farmers, our bounden duty to present this product, and the information in regard to its use, in such a way that the moderate and civilized use of this product is always emphasized. Liquor abuse is still, as far as any wine farmer is concerned, the greatest single aberration. I want to repeat: For any true wine farmer, and let me add, for any true wine dealer, liquor abuse is still the biggest single aberration in this country. It is an aberration that destroys the image of our product, the image we have built up over the years, and on the basis of which a civilized culture embodying elevated norms has been built up. Liquor abuse destroys that image. That is why the KWV has committed itself and the wine farmers to propagating and emphasizing— and supplying the necessary information and guidance in that connection—the consistent, correct and civilized use of liquor and wine. Today I want to give the undertaking that as far as flavoured wine is concerned, I commit the wine farmers and the KWV to furnishing the same information and guidance with greater effectiveness and enterprise.

With these few words I gladly support this legislation. I do so, imbued as I am with the greatest of expectations, on behalf of the entire South African wine industry.

Mr Speaker, today if Friday the thirteenth and although I am not superstitious, I think that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North should consider whether it would not have been better if he had stayed in bed today. Sir, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon member for Ceres, a responsible agricultural leader, a moderate person for whom we all have respect and a leader of stature in the industry he serves. I feel therefore it was rather a pity that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North made a futile attempt to prevent the hon member from putting his side of the case. [Interjections.]

Sir, I realize only to well that it is a risky business for a barbaric Transvaler to express an opinion on the wine industry. However, this legislation in general again draws attention to the intricacies of the various branches of the farming industry in South Africa. While we so frequently hear uninformed comments that control in agriculture is the evil responsible for most of the problems in agriculture, this legislation again underlines the fact that proper and good control is the only solution for the agricultural industry in South Africa. We on this side—it is almost four o’clock—are satisfied that the Minister has succeeded, after negotiating with all interested parties in the industry, in finding a better formula so that everyone involved in the production of wine contributes his fair share towards the so-called surplus contribution. I think that in this regard this measure is essential.

There is a second important aspect of this measure, namely the possibility of the manufacture of so-called flavoured wine. As a Transvaler I could refer to it as “lavender wine”, but I shall not do so. I think the wine industry has every right to exploit new sales outlets for its products. We have the assurance that this new flavoured wine is a natural agricultural product, a product of the good earth of our fatherland. For that reason I cannot see why anyone should have the right to deny a wine farmer the right to prepare that natural product for the enjoyment of the population as a whole.

On a previous occasion the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said he could not see anything romantic about wine. If that is his attitude, I want to suggest to him that he reread Omar Khayyam. I think that an interesting and pleasurable part of life has in fact passed that hon member by.

Mr Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the debate I want to ask hon members to travel safely by SAA and on the trains, and to enjoy their wine and orange juice! I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

Agreed to.