laid upon the Table the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Transvaal, dated 31 August 1987, as follows:

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Agricultural Credit Act which are aimed primarily at improving administrative procedures.

Firstly, certain adjustments have to be made in order to correct certain obsolete expressions and to clearly define and distinguish between the duties and responsibilities of the Director-General: Administration: House of Assembly and the chief executive officer of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. Since this Act is not applicable to South West Africa, all references to that territory are being deleted and all provisions applicable to that territory, repealed.

Provision making it possible for agricultural credit committees to be enlarged in comparison to the present situation in which they may consist of a maximum of five members is also being made. This step has become necessary due to the increased number of applications for assistance in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act.

The present provisions which apply in respect of the leasing of State land are not flexible enough to establish young and beginner farmers on such land. Furthermore, fixed interest rates were laid down in the original Act which, in particular circumstances, may not be realistic. It is now proposed to make the conditions of leasing more flexible and to provide that these conditions may be determined by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister of the Budget.

It sometimes happens that people who are indebted to the State leave their farms without any prior notification, with the result that State collateral, particularly movable property, is exposed to the risk of destruction. An adjustment is now being made to the Act to the effect that the Minister may take immediate action in order to protect such collateral and not be restricted by any stipulation as to time.

The interest rate that was laid down in the Act prior to 1982, namely 5%, is unrealistically low in the vast majority of cases. There is no reason why prosperous farmers should be financed at subsidised interest rates in the case of long-term loans, or why beginner farmers should not pay an even lower rate. It is therefore intended to provide that interest rates shall be determined with due regard to the demands and requirements of the times. The changes with regard to the entrenched interest rates will apply five years after this Bill comes into operation.

One of the major delaying factors affecting the payment of assistance to an applicant is the provision that whenever the registration of a mortgage bond over immovable property is required as security, confirmation of such registration is desired before the assistance may be paid out. Provision is now being made for the applicant to grant a written authority for such registration, and if the Minister is then satisfied that the required mortgage bond may be registered, the assistance may be paid out. In this way one of the greatest problems with regard to agricultural financing will, in my view, be alleviated, because this is one of the major complaints against it.

The Bill also contains a provision to the effect that if the applicant’s estate is sequestrated between the date of such authorisation and the date of registration of the mortgage bond, that authorisation shall, for the purposes of the provisions of any law relating to the precedence of claims against insolvent or deceased estates, be deemed to be a mortgage bond which has been duly registered. There is also the prospect of a considerable saving of time, which will, of course, mean a large financial advantage to the farmers by way of a reduction in interest.

A further bone of contention for the farmers, namely the marking of livestock offered as security, is also undergoing a change. Instead of marking livestock, a livestock register must be kept by the farmer, and the onus is placed on the farmer to identify that livestock which has been offered as security to the State. If the farmers do not co-operate in carrying out this procedure successfully, there will be no hesitation in reverting to the marking of livestock. This aspect has given rise to many problems in practice, and I believe the new arrangement will improve the situation.

Provision is also being made for the acceptance of an acknowledgement of debt as security for short-term loans and loans involving smaller amounts. It is accepted that this procedure is risky, and that in the event of the sequestration or death of the applicant, there is, in fact, a possibility that it may not be possible to recover the entire debt. This provision will be applied with discretion in order to minimise the risk.

Certain stipulations as to time which are applicable to the recovery of debt are also being omitted to enable the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply to take swifter action to protect the interests of the State. In this regard, I might just emphasise that this provision should not be taken as an indication that the department intends to step up its debt recovery campaign in order to place those farmers who are already battling under even greater pressure, but is simply a measure to prevent the State from suffering unnecessary losses.

It often happens that amounts are paid into the Agricultural Credit Account erroneously, for example when the agricultural co-operatives collect money on behalf of the department and the farmer then pays the same debt. No provision was made for the reimbursement of these erroneous payments without the approval of the Treasury, and the Act is therefore being amended accordingly to enable these erroneous payments to be disposed of departmentally.

The Agricultural Credit Board cannot render assistance to an applicant whose estate has already been sequestrated. In the interpretation of statutes, sequestration also means provisional sequestration, but for the purposes of legal certainty this provision is now being included. The same applies to liquidation and provisional liquidation in the case of companies.

In those instances in which a certificate is issued in terms of section 21 or a compromise is proposed by the Agricultural Credit Board in terms of section 22, all legal proceedings in relation to valid transactions by the applicant between the date of publication of the intended certificate or notice and the date on which the certificate or notice expires, shall be stayed. For the sake of completeness, provision is now also being made for the staying of any set-off between the applicant and a creditor during that period.

Provision is also being made that when the nomination of a liquidator or trustee in terms of sections 27 and 28 respectively cannot be confirmed by the Master of the Supreme Court for any reason whatsoever, the Master may forthwith appoint a liquidator or trustee as the case may require. This measure is also aimed at streamlining the procedure. Provision is being made in the legislation that whenever a condition is imposed that immovable property shall be mortgaged as security for assistance rendered or any amount recoverable under this Act from any person, the Minister may order that wherever two or more title deeds are involved, those items of immovable property may not be alienated individually. These provisions were originally intended firstly to bring about the establishment of larger agricultural units and secondly to improve the State’s position with regard to security when rendering assistance.

In practice, however, the establishment of larger agricultural units has simply not materialised and in fact, a great deal of inconvenience, coupled with frustration and financial losses, is being experienced by those who are saddled with the burden of consolidated land. The department has now adopted the policy with regard to the alienation of State land that wherever a landmark or common boundary exists between two units and consolidation of the units is advisable, there will be an insistence upon consolidation as a prerequisite to the rendering of assistance. It has also been found in practice that requests to alienate such consolidated land have taken place with a view either to improving the purchaser’s farming conditions or to restructuring those of the seller. In fact, a large number of consolidations have taken place without just cause. The administrative burden of this procedure, and the time required to prepare the necessary permissions and permission documents, as well as the consequential burden on deeds offices, simply cannot be justified. Accordingly, provision is being made for all consolidations to be cancelled. The State’s securities will not be affected by this.

However, in order to prevent speculation with agricultural land which the State alienates to farmers, provision is being made for a prohibition on alienation without the Minister’s permission. By way of explanation, I might mention that State agricultural land is sold at its agricultural value and not at its market value, which is normally higher. In the absence of restrictions on alienation, anyone purchasing State land at its agricultural value could immediately sell it at the higher market price. It is intended to introduce a 10-year or a 5-year non-sale provision, and if the purchaser applies for permission to sell before the end of that period, the Minister may grant such permission, subject to the conditions laid down by him.

Those aspects I have dealt with thus far, have been aimed at improving administrative measures in order to speed up the payment of assistance and to facilitate the rendering of a better service.

What remains to be discussed is a less pleasant facet of the legislation. In its dealings with farmers, the department relies, both by means of binding agreements and by the acceptance of their bona fides, on the wholehearted co-operation of farmers to honour their agreements in the manner prescribed by law. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and malpractices are becoming more and more common.

Examples of this are the unlawful sale of bonded livestock and the delivery of crops to places other than those originally agreed upon. In the latter case, for example, a crop production loan is granted to the farmer on condition, inter alia, that he dispose of his products at a specific co-operative so that the co-operative may collect the loan amount and pay it over to the department. It has been found in practice that farmers dispose of their products at another co-operative in a different area, or that they sell them under a false name, sometimes their wives’ or neighbours’ names, or even under the names of some of their labourers. The State has lost large sums of money in this way.

Consequently, it has now become necessary to create a new category of offence. The present penalty of a fine of R1 000 for an offence of this nature does not appear to be an adequate deterrent, and the amount of the fine is being increased from R1 000 to R10 000, but the length of the prison sentence in the case of non-payment remains unchanged at five years. Similarly, the size of the fine in respect of a contravention of the regulations promulgated in terms of the Act is also being increased from R200 to R5 000.

I should like to mention for the information of hon members that the Bill was submitted, inter alia, to the SA Agricultural Union, who lent it their full support. Some of the other bodies which considered it, did not have any objection to these changes either. I think this legislation will serve to considerably facilitate the moves we are initiating with regard to agricultural credit.

Mr Speaker, I trust you will allow me, before I turn to the Bill before us, to express, on behalf of this side of the House, our sympathy to the injured and the next of kin of the victims of yesterday’s dreadful mining accident at the St Helena Goldmine in the Free State. I do not want to say anything else about that.

We have examined the Bill carefully and were privileged to obtain the assistance of a senior departmental official who explained those aspects that were not clear to us. We should like to thank him and the hon the Minister for that particular official’s services.

It is true, as the hon the Minister said, that most of the provisions in this Bill are aimed at streamlining the implementation of the principal Act. That is why we agree with them. I believe too that in the light of our current experience in applying the Act and in implementing it in the interests of the farming industry, particularly of those farmers who are heading for bankruptcy, it has perhaps become urgently necessary for us to examine all the provisions of the principal Act thoroughly. I would have preferred us to have effected the necessary changes during the present session of Parliament, since it appears that the disposal of applications under the new emergency scheme is being delayed, and that because of certain problems which I do not want to go into now, the true object of the latest appropriation of R400 million is to a large extent being defeated.

That is why we on this side of the House want to appeal to the hon the Minister, the Government, and to the Ministry to do everything in their power to introduce this legislation as soon as possible in order to obviate those problems. We are dealing with huge sums of money here. These are colossal amounts, and colossal amounts in interest are also at stake. A further delay of six months or more could only serve to aggravate the present state of affairs. I am sure the hon the Minister and his department will do everything in their power to introduce the necessary amendments. On our part, we shall welcome and support every practicable amendment.

Allow me, Sir, to make just a few remarks about certain provisions in the Bill, because it is virtually impossible to comment fully on all the provisions. There is no consistent principle, because the Bill is more concerned with practical measures.

Clause 4, which makes it possible for more than five members to be appointed to an agricultural credit committee, is to be desired. It has been shown in practice that it is not practical to restrict that committee to a maximum of five members, especially under the current circumstances. It is essential, therefore, that that be rectified.

Allow me too, Sir, to make a few remarks about the differentiated interest rates that can now be determined and also about the authority that is being granted to the Minister to amend the interest rate, after a further five years have elapsed, in those cases where a fixed interest rate of 5% was determined in respect of loans granted prior to 1982.

It is interesting that wherever reference was made in the old Act to the Minister of Finance, it has been altered so that reference is now made to the Minister of the Budget: House of Assembly, except in clause 13 of this Bill which provides that those interest rates will be determined in co-operation with the Minister of Finance.

I find it odd that although we are dealing here with a so-called own affairs department which has an own affairs Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply will not negotiate money matters with the Minister of the Budget: House of Assembly, but with the Minister of Finance, a general affairs Minister. I cannot but deduce from this that it will not be the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply who will wield the sceptre in this connection, but very definitely the hon the Minister of Finance.

Naturally! It is everyone’s taxes, after all.

I think that hon member, the farmer from Hercules, would be well advised to refrain from trying to participate in a discussion on this Bill, because he knows as much about this as the man in the moon. [Interjections.] On the other hand, of course, the rules of this House do not forbid one to display one’s ignorance.

I merely wanted to comment that this proves once again that there is merely an artificial division between so-called own affairs and general affairs, because ultimately it is the hon the Minister of Finance who wields the sceptre.

I shall not refer to clause 15, which deals with the expediting of the payment of money and the delivery of property. Another speaker on this side of the House will refer to that briefly and will probably also mention the practical problems that could arise as a result of the proposed amendment.

Clause 27 (1) now grants the Minister the right to prevent speculation with agricultural land in that the land now has to be alienated at the agricultural value. The Minister now acquires the power to stipulate certain conditions before such land can be alienated from the State by the person who bought it. We appreciate that, but we still find it a little strange to see how history is repeating itself. I remember a similar provision in the pre-1948 days when I was still a young man, in the days of the United Party’s famous Mr Conroy, the then Minister of Lands. A similar provision applied with regard to the prohibition on the alienation of State land that had been allocated to farmers. That was one of the main weapons of attack which we as Nationalists in the Transvaal used against Mr Conroy. We accused him of making slaves of our farmers and of wanting to be master of the farms unto eternity. If I remember correctly, one of the first measures that the NP Government placed on the Statute Book after 1948 was the measure that repealed that provision.

Now the Government has come forward with an adapted measure, but in essence it is identical to the measure which applied in those days.

Nevertheless we agree with it. We feel it is not in the interests of the country for the State to sell land to a prospective farmer at the agricultural value, which is far below the market value, as has been shown in practice, when that man is not really interested in farming but rather in making a quick profit and then getting rid of the farm.

I do not believe, however, that this measure will solve that problem. It can contribute to a solution, but the real solution is to get the right man back on the farm. I know it is difficult always to manage to do that. The solution is to get the right farmer and then to give him that State land so that he can farm on it. I still believe that a young man who is a farmer in every fibre of his being, will not sell his land—not at any price! That is why I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to make sure that no favours are handed out in these cases and that where State land is alienated to prospective farmers, the people involved really are bona fide cases.

I do not want to say much more, except to say something about the last part of the hon the Deputy Minister’s comments on the unpleasant portion of the Bill. We agree that we cannot allow a situation in which the Government goes out of its way to assist people, at the expense of the taxpayer and on very favourable conditions—which one could not do in the private sector—and then have those who have been assisted abuse that assistance and actually try to extricate themselves from the agreement with the Government in a deceitful way. That is why we are amenable to increased punitive measures in this regard. We may point out that although the amount of the fines mentioned here seem high, the measures will in each case be applied within the discretion of the court.

With those few words I am pleased to say on behalf of the CP that we support the measure.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Deputy Minister has given a full explanation of the necessity for this amending Bill, and for that reason I myself do not want to discuss it in detail.

At this stage we thank the Official Opposition for supporting the amending Bill, and we also appreciate the support of the PFP and the NRP.

I want to react briefly to the hon member for Barberton’s remark that certain provisions of this Bill serve once again to indicate how untenable the concepts of own affairs and general affairs are because in certain respects, the hon the Minister of Finance will ostensibly have the final say now. I just want to tell the hon member that the fact that we share a single economy is a reality we shall undoubtedly have to face in the field of agriculture as well, and that finance will remain a general affair. However, this in itself is no reason why there should not be an own affairs department of agriculture for each individual population group.

I should like to lend my wholehearted support to the hon member for Barberton’s suggestion that the Act as a whole be subjected to an exhaustive review. When one bases one’s judgement on the improvements that have already been made to the Act by way of these few amendments, one is led to believe that the Act as a whole could most certainly be reconsidered.

I just want to make one observation. I wholeheartedly support the provisions of the amending Bill with regard to the question of the enlargement of the agricultural credit committees, that is to say, the fact that an agricultural credit committee may now consist of more than five members. The fact of the matter is that these agricultural credit committees play a very important role because they act as a link between the farmer who requests the State for assistance, and the State itself. They are mediators which have real first-hand knowledge of the applicant himself and of the circumstances under which he operates. That is why it is a good thing that the system has developed to such an extent that the Minister and the department will attach great importance to the specific recommendations of these agricultural credit committees.

Then, of course, there is always the possibility that personal prejudices against one applicant or another may exist within such an agricultural credit committee. Therefore, if such an agricultural credit committee may consist of a larger number of members, one is, for obvious reasons, in fact reducing that risk.

I am also very pleased about the various steps that are being taken in this amending Bill to streamline the whole process of the rendering of State assistance and, furthermore, to establish beginner farmers more easily and more quickly. There is a whole series of measures with regard to which one is tempted to make the following observation: Why only now? I believe this entire amending Bill will receive the wholehearted support of all right-minded farmers and, in fact, of organised agriculture—which has already indicated its support.

We gladly support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, as has been said, most of the clauses in this somewhat lengthy Bill are purely alterations to the text of the Act to make the Act an own affairs Act which is to be administered by the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply in the Administration: House of Assembly. One wonders how much time, effort and money has been expended in what we in these benches regard as a futile exercise. As I have stressed to the hon the Minister previously, we are totally against splitting agriculture into these racially segregated departments, because we see South Africa as one country—agriculturally and in every other respect!

The hon member for Barberton, in talking about “needing the concurrence of the hon the Minister of Finance” merely underlined exactly what I am saying. The whole exercise is a totally futile one, and the frustration that a split like this occasions becomes worse when one knows that it is absolutely inevitable that eventually the whole procedure will have to be reversed. It can only be a temporary thing, Sir. I see this happening in the future, and I should like to tell the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon the Minister that at that stage. I think we should go on record as having pointed out that the whole procedure is a waste of time and money which South African can ill afford.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, many amendments have to do with revoking the application of the Act to South West Africa; and others give the hon the Minister greater freedom to act in respect of interest rates. A freer situation also exists as regards conditions enabling the Agricultural Credit Board to lend money. I tend to agree with both hon members who have spoken so far that there should be even greater latitude and that the Act itself needs to be looked at in its totality so that we can see what we can do to make the giving of this sort of assistance to farmers a much more efficient operation.

We shall not oppose this Bill, but there are a couple of questions that I should like to put at the Committee Stage.

Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Second Reading of this Bill.

At the outset I should like to pay tribute to all those dedicated people who administer and carry out the intentions of the agricultural credit scheme for the conscientious way in which they do so.

I know that many of the officials probably have as many sleepless nights as the affected farmers themselves. These officials are truly dedicated.

A large portion of the RSA is very unkind as far as the weather pattern is concerned, yet we find every outback—often of very unhospitable countryside—populated by people who dearly love the land. After the worst drought in living memory, many of these people find themselves in dire financial straits. Every clause in this Bill is aimed at making the net finer with one goal in mind—to prevent as many farmers as possible from leaving their land. However, there is one proviso: The controls for implementing this assistance must be sound and disciplined and allow for accountability. All these points are taken care of in the Bill so as also to protect the interests of the State. I am sure that the measures incorporated will ease the burden of the board members, as well as streamline procedures and allow for officials to take more personal initiative. They are also aimed at helping the greatest possible number of farmers. In this way we are safeguarding our agricultural heritage and therefore I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, as the hon member for Barberton has already indicated, we support this Bill. We trust that it will greatly facilitate the implementation of the measures aimed at rendering financial assistance to the affected parties.

There is one aspect to which I want to refer, however, and that is the amendment contained in clause 15, which seeks to amend section 17 of the principal Act. In the proposed new section 17 (2) it is stated that the date on which the written authority is signed shall be deemed to be the date on which the mortgage bond is registered. We quite understand this provision and we understand the reason for it. There is sometimes a delay of several months after such a written authority has been signed before the mortgage bond can eventually be registered. As a result of this, interest mounts up and the payment of financial assistance is, in fact, delayed.

However, we want to point out that as the saying goes, hard cases make bad law. The registration of a mortgage bond in the deeds office serves a specific purpose. It serves as a notification to the public that that land has been mortgaged. Commercial institutions such as banks make enquiries at the deeds office in order to ascertain to what extent land has been mortgaged and whether, for example, they may provide someone with financial assistance. In this way they can determine what the person’s financial position is.

It might perhaps appear from such an investigation that no mortgage bond has been registered at the deeds office, or that there is only one fairly small bond. Meanwhile, however, there is a mortgage bond lying in a filing cabinet at the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing which, to all intents and purposes, has already been registered because the written authority has been signed. If that written authority has been signed and an insolvency occurs, then the date on which the written authority was signed is deemed to be the date on which the mortgage bond was registered. Even if, in the final analysis, that mortgage bond is never registered or an insolvency occurs before it is registered, that date is deemed to be the date of registration of the mortgage bond.

This could possibly be prejudicial to certain people’s interests. It could lead to a commercial bank advancing a loan on the strength of information it has received to the effect that there is no mortgage bond, or that there is merely a small mortgage, or that there is no second or third mortgage, or whatever the position is. In order to remedy that position, I wonder whether it would not be desirable for the hon the Minister to consider notifying the Registrar of Deeds the moment the written authority in respect of the mortgage bond is signed. Such notification could be made by way of a caveat on the title deed, and anyone conducting an investigation at the deeds office could at least be warned that a written authority has already been signed in terms of section 17. I just want to make that suggestion.

I fully understand the urgency of this legislation. For that reason we shall not propose an amendment to that effect at this stage. We think this could be done by way of an administrative arrangement. As has already been indicated, we think certain other amendments will soon have to be made to the Act. We shall therefore simply ask the hon the Minister to bear this in mind. If those amendments are effected swiftly, we do not believe this will be so detrimental to people’s interests as to necessitate any further amendments at this stage.

As I have already said, a mortgage bond is technically deemed to have already been registered whilst it is still lying in a filing cabinet in the department in the form of a written authority, even though it may well never reach the deeds office.

We note that provisional sequestration is also regarded as sequestration. This is actually unfortunate, but I think it is simply in line with the provisions of the Insolvency Act, which state that provisional sequestration is, in fact, deemed to be sequestration. We should like to see a distinction made in this regard so that in the case of provisional sequestration, there will still be an opportunity to obtain assistance before final sequestration takes effect. We understand that this was not, in any event, the position previously, but in our opinion we should also pay some attention to this when we come to consider further amendments to the Act.

We on this side of the House are pleased to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am very grateful that hon members of the respective parties also support this Bill, because I think it will considerably strengthen the hand of the officials working with it. As I have said, it will also eliminate a great deal of frustration.

I should like to reply to a few of the remarks made. We will have to look at this Act again on a wider basis than we are doing at present. We looked mainly at pressing problems facing us, which it was in our power to change in the short term.

This follows on what the hon member for Barberton said, namely that we will have to take an in-depth look at where this Act operates across dividing lines, including those in agriculture, in the financial world. The implication is that we must give attention to this. Some time in future we will have to insert this change again to bring the Act up to date with prevailing circumstances.

We have already started certain programmes in this connection. I can just mention that as a result of problems we are experiencing with compounding of debts in respect of the Agricultural Credit Act, the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply and the hon the Minister of Justice have established a liaison committee, on which officials of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, the Department of Justice, the office of the Master of the Supreme Court, representatives of the Law Society of the Transvaal and representatives of the SAAU will serve, to consider such aspects.

This liaison committee has already identified certain deficiencies in the compounding process, for example problems which farmers would have in acquiring credit after composition, as well as other problems. It also appears that farmers are hesitant to apply for composition, and that is why so few applications are received. They foresee certain problems in the clauses of the Bill.

The Law Society has already formulated proposals in terms of which the compounding process can be facilitated, and has made proposals which envisage an amendment to the Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936, as well as possible further amendments to the Agricultural Credit Act. This matter is at present receiving urgent attention and we shall discuss this with the hon the Minister of Justice in the near future. We are therefore doing something. But more is at issue than simply this Act. This is one of the reasons why we are a little hesitant to introduce it now, because we could be faced with other problems.

In clause 13 we are allowing a little leeway for the question of differentiated interest rates. The interest rates must be determined in consultation with the Department of Finance—I am now referring to clause 13—and the determining of interest rates is a general affair in terms of the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act. As regards the determining of interest rates in connection with own affairs, we must therefore liaise with the Ministry of Finance. As is the case with everything in this country, it is simply not possible to lay down rigid boundaries in respect of own communities. This is yet another example of this. I am not, however, criticising own affairs when I say this. There is always an element of overlapping, no matter what sphere one is operating in, whether it be the division of land or finance or whatever. There is always an element of liaison. No one can really escape from this co-ordination.

I also took cognisance of what the hon member for Barberton said, namely that the matter of the resale of agricultural land actually vest in the go-ahead farmer (jokkie). A farmer who loves his land, will not readily forfeit it, but as the old farmer said: “Money is not the most important thing in the world, but it is streets ahead of the second most important thing.” It frequently happens in agriculture that because of attractive offers a man eventually says: “I can start over again somewhere else and then my agricultural affairs will run more smoothly.” This is true, and the hon member knows that element is becoming more prevalent than one would wish, to the detriment of the farming community.

The test which the department lays down to establish young farmers is fairly comprehensive. Names are not simply drawn out of a hat. A person’s personality and financial ability are analysed. His knowledge of farming and specific circumstances are also taken into consideration. His education, marital status and the number of children he has are also considered.

All these facets are assessed, and in this way the number of applicants is thinned out until only a small group remains, which one then tries to evaluate in a really meaningful manner on the basis of personal interviews. It is also true that in this regard one is dealing with people who will always try to put their best foot forward. Of course we also make mistakes in this regard. This is true. However, in this way we eliminate most of the chancers and we hope eventually to settle the most suitable person on the property in question. So far I feel, the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply has been very successful in this regard. The failures—if I can talk of failures—are therefore minimal.

As the hon member indicated, the new fines sound tremendously high. A fine of R10 000 is high; that is true. However, when one takes into consideration that in certain cases a crop worth R200 000 may be at issue, and that a farmer can let the State down badly in this regard, it is a fact that when the fine is too low, he can very easily think that he will run the risk of being fined, as long as he can lay his hands on that money.

The hon member for Fauresmith referred to the members of the agricultural credit committee. I feel they have an important function in the entire chain. The fact that the workload on their shoulders can be lightened, will also contribute to greater efficiency.

†I am grateful to the hon member for Bryanston for his support of the Bill. Although he might believe this exercise to be futile, I should like to point out to him that this is aimed at 90% of agriculture in this country.

Why not at 100%?

Because the other 10% perform on a different basis from the 90%. The moment they reach the same standard we can think of rewriting these measures. At present, however, we are aiming at the 90% where the really significant productivity is to be found. It is useless to try to make a law in relation to modern agriculture while using it as a means for the upliftment of the Third World agricultural sector in our country. That is the real problem. We must use other methods to accomplish that. By concentrating on the 90% here it does not mean that we are overlooking the other 10%. We merely make use of different measures in respect of the other 10%. We do this very thoroughly and very efficiently, as the hon member will be able to note should he go and look at the agricultural enterprises upon which we have embarked in some of our rural areas.

*I also thank the hon member Mr Redinger for the fine things he had to say about the Department. I must say there are few branches of this Department whose abilities have been tested so intensely during the past few years as the Directorate: Financial Assistance. This directorate is performing its task in an excellent way.

The hon member for Bethal pointed out a few interesting aspects in connection with clause 15. The hon member pointed out certain deficiencies as regards the authority to register mortgages. We are also concerned about this. Of course this will depend on the efficiency of the administration. It is true that mistakes can be made. What is, however, at stake is a sharpening of the administration. We have nevertheless taken cognisance of the proposal made by the hon member. We shall also implement this. In this regard we shall also take note of how things work in practice. If any problems crop up in this connection, when we next amend the Act we shall endeavour to introduce better wording and an improved procedure. I am grateful for the positive ideas raised in this regard.

In conclusion I should like to say a few words in connection with the legislation under discussion. The disconnecting idea in respect of property does away with one of the most important objections, which in the past caused farmers great frustration and many financial losses. Of course it had its good aspects, but the problems which it caused have now been eliminated.

The fact that, particularly in the North West, livestock need no longer be marked is an important innovation. The marking of livestock was always a thorn in the flesh of farmers. When a farmer sees someone else’s mark on an animal’s ear, he feels it is simply no longer his animal. Strangely enough the Land Bank tested this procedure years ago. Eventually it ceased doing so. The Land Bank’s earmarkers were supposed to be poisonous because only its sheep died. When Agricultural Credit started marking sheep, its markers were suddenly also poisonous because only the sheep whose ears had been marked by Agricultural Credit died. The other sheep were fine.

These problems caused great frustration among farmers over the years. There were also farmers who said that they would look after the sheep but once Agricultural Credit had marked a sheep it had to see to it that the animal was fed. Farmers said they had battled for long enough to feed their own sheep; if the State wanted the sheep as security it should look after them itself.

Mr Speaker, I am grateful for the support of hon members. I hope that in future we will reap the benefit of this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Clause 15:

Mr Chairman, I mentioned during the Second Reading debate that I was going to raise a point during the Committee Stage. However, in the interim the hon member for Bethal has dealt with the point that I raised, and the hon the Deputy Minister has answered it. I, too, believe that this could well prejudice existing creditors, and I think it must be looked into. I am, however, satisfied with the hon the Deputy Minister’s reply.

Clause agreed to.

Title:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Marketing Act, in its original form, was placed on the Statute Book 50 years ago. The objects of the present Act, as was the case with the Marketing Act, 1937, are to make provision for the orderly marketing of agricultural products in the interest of both producers and consumers.

As marketing processes became more sophisticated and solutions for new problems have to be found, it is necessary to adapt regularly the provisions of the Act. The Bill does not contain any drastic adjustments to the basic principles of the Act. However I should like to emphasise some of the more important amendments now being proposed.

The resignation of the majority of the members of a control board may have negative results on the administration of a scheme. Provision is therefore made that should such a situation arise, a committee may be appointed temporarily in the place of such a control board. This authority will, as a matter of fact, be used only if it appears that a control board cannot be properly constituted within the foreseeable future after the occurrence of such an event and then only for as long as the control board cannot be so constituted.

A committee appointed as a result of an agreement of co-operation between control boards in terms of section 38 of the Act, may be so large that it could be unpractical to also meet for the execution of its day-to-day function. Provision is therefore made in the Bill that a subcommittee can be appointed and vested with particular executive powers.

With regard to the registration of producers by control boards it was found that in the case of compulsory one-channel marketing of products, an anomaly exists in the Act. If the current provisions of the Act were applied in such a case, it would have the result that a producer who fails to register, may be prevented from selling his products. This anomaly will be removed by the proposed restructuring of the relevant provisions of the Act. Provision is therefore being made that when a producer has complied with the format requirements for registration, the control board may not refuse or cancel the registration.

The Bill was supported by the organised agriculture and trade as well as the other bodies to which it was submitted for comments.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Minister dealt fairly comprehensively with the relevant provisions of the Bill during his Second Reading speech and I should just like to say that we support the Bill.

The hon the Minister referred to the problems that could arise if the majority of the members of a control board were to resign or become indisposed with the result that the control board would be unable to function adequately and urgent action would have to be taken. We also think it is necessary for the Minister to be able to make the necessary practical arrangements in such an instance. Before too long, it may become necessary for us to make a similar arrangement with regard to the Cabinet itself. I mention that merely as an aside.

There is just one clause which troubles me a little. It relates to the current arrangement in terms of which the control board—I wish we would refer to these boards as marketing boards, because it is hoped that our control boards are in fact marketing boards today—will no longer be able to come to a private arrangement with its agent regarding the payment of compensation wherever the State pays a subsidy on one product or another, but that the assistance of the Minister will now have to be enlisted.

I was under the impression that we were moving in the direction of deregulation and the devolution of power, but in more and more cases we are finding just the opposite taking place. I am not saying that the interests of the State should not be protected. Of course they should be adequately protected. However, I do not know of any cases—and since I am not aware of any, I should be pleased if the hon the Minister would enlighten me in private and not in public—in which these particular powers of the control boards to reach an agreement with an agent regarding the payment of a certain amount of compensation have been abused. As I have said, I do not know of any instances in which that discretion has been abused. If there are any, we should like to be informed about them. However, we should not like this to be done now across the floor of the House.

With those few words, then, it is a pleasure for me, on behalf of the Official Opposition, to lend our support to this measure.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Barberton said that we should get our nomenclature correct and speak about marketing boards rather than control boards. He has my full support in that regard. I think it is far more descriptive of the real function of these boards and of the work these people actually do.

The registration of producers is one aspect which could possibly give rise to some problems. I think it is a good arrangement because having that information facilitates the general management of an industry by the control board and the Government. It is also a good thing that the legislation contains a provision to the effect that the registration of a producer may not be refused. This means that the producer may not be deliberately or summarily excluded. This is simply a measure designed to facilitate the exercise of better control and management. It is a pleasure for me to support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, listening to the hon members for Barberton and Caledon, I too believe that the terminology calling the boards marketing boards rather than control boards is a very good idea.

One of the great problems about discussing the Marketing Act or amendments to it is that the principle of the Act is not up for discussion. As the hon the Minister said, the principle was accepted in 1937—50 years ago this year—when the original Act was passed. The present form of the Act was passed without debate as a consolidation measure in 1968. Several amendments are being proposed in this Bill which affect the way in which the cartel system operates—notably amendments to section 59—but we are not in a position to question the cartel system itself. Given the opportunity we would most certainly do so because as the hon the Minister knows we are not in agreement with many aspects of the Act.

Most of this Bill deals with technical amendments which are not controversial. Clause 3 excludes the South West African marketing boards from the powers of the Reference Board. Clause 6 which amends section 28 of the Act gives the hon the Minister the power to appoint a committee to exercise the powers of a control board in the event of a control board not being able to be constituted or if the number of vacancies is such that the remaining members are insufficient to constitute a quorum. On the standing committee I was uncertain as to whether or not to support this clause and the amendments. However, I finally decided to do so because of the fairly recent history of the Maize Board where it became absolutely imperative that the Minister had the power to do this.

Thank you.

Clause 7 provides for subcommittees of committees of marketing boards. One could say that this places more power in fewer hands but as this can only take place with the unanimous approval of the committee we will also support this provision. However, I would point out something that escaped my attention in the standing committee. While the appointment of a subcommittee can only come about with the unanimous approval of the committee, whether or not this means all the members of the committee or the members present at a particular meeting, is not quite clear to me.

I do not share the problems experienced by the hon member for Barberton concerning clause 8. I think that if a subsidy is to be paid by the State, the salary paid to the agent of a marketing board ought to be approved by the Minister. This seems to me to be a necessary and logical safeguard, because he who pays the piper calls the tune.

As the hon the Minister pointed out, the proposed new section 59 embodied in clause 9 does away with an anomaly in that producers failing to register with a board will not be subject to a prohibition on the sale of their products. On the other hand, it will result in producers of certain commodities for the purpose of sale having to register with the control board concerned. Restrictions are now to be placed on the power of marketing boards to refuse such registrations, so that they become merely a formality. I think the restructuring of this section is an improvement.

I know I will probably annoy the hon the Minister, but I must comment again on the amount of time and money spent on consequential amendments due to the new constitutional dispensation. I cannot help thinking that it is all a temporary exercise to no lasting purpose. We will, however, support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the support from both sides of the House. I merely want to make a few observations on the ideas expressed here by hon members.

To begin with I want to say that the amendment that provides for the appointment of a temporary committee when problems are experienced with a control board will be applied very rarely. In fact, it will be applied only in extraordinary circumstances. I want to add, however, that those extraordinary circumstances can be such that a scheme could in fact be interrupted for three months. That is why it was essential to introduce this amendment.

The hon member for Barberton has a few problems with the fact that the investigations section of my department will now be involved in the determination of margins and the cost of storage at agents. It is true that in certain industries such as the bread industry, where we constantly have to determine margins because the Government is involved in a subsidy of the final product, our investigations section has to play a part in arriving at certain determinations with the Wheat Board within a specific formula.

This also applies to maize, one of the other important staple food grain products, where the Government subsidises some of the storage costs. Some of the agents are very dependent upon the remuneration paid by these boards for storage.

I can tell the hon member that certain capacity guarantees have been negotiated with agents by these boards for the storage of grain. Should a situation arise in which a board were to have a dispute with its agents about those storage facilities, these capacity guarantees would come into question, and this could cause some of the agents a great deal of harm. That is why it is necessary, when the Government is involved in the financing and partial subsidisation of this storage remuneration, that it should have a say in the process, and that the Minister is therefore consulted.

Eventually we should like to move away from that kind of situation, but under the present circumstances it is not that simple in respect of bread and maize. That is why provision must be made for this.

The hon member for Caledon said something about the registration of producers. This was an anomaly that we encountered in the principal Act. In certain schemes—the surplus removal schemes, for example, as in the case of meat, where there are many purchasers of the product—there is an outside area and a controlled area. In the case of grains such as maize and wheat, the producers would be compelled to register, and if someone had not registered, where would he sell his product? If, therefore, one wants to apply registration for the purposes of marketing and surveys, provision must be made in the Act for the producer who wants to deliver his product, but is not registered. Where is the producer to sell his product if there is only one purchaser? We are making provision, therefore, for the farmer to deliver that grain even if he is not registered. Rather than his not being permitted to deliver the product, he will then be guilty under the Act.

The hon member for Bryanston spoke about the special rules. I merely want to say that the hon member is concerned about the committee system which we are trying to refine under that specific section. The idea of the committee system is to create specialised subcommittees.

Committees among these that work very well, are the price committees in the tobacco and cotton industries. Three or four specialists among the spinners and the ginners get together and talk as specialists about the price structure in the industry. This committee then submits its well-considered opinion to the board.

The board still has to take a decision and in terms of section 29 such a decision is never final until the minority and majority decisions have been submitted to the Marketing Council for the eventual approval of the Minister. This can never, therefore, threaten the main principle of a producer’s majority in the board in the process. The only purpose is to have a more specialised discussion, especially in respect of prices.

We had the problem that some producers in certain industries said they thought there was no sense in being members of a board in which there was a producers’ majority, because prices were determined by the putting up of a hand without proper, thorough discussions having been held and an evaluation of the economic circumstances of that specific industry having been made. A number of boards are moving towards this committee system, and we want greater legal security about the actions the boards are talking at present.

The hon member also remarked that we are moving in the direction of less control and deregulation. In terms of an instruction we gave the National Marketing Council three years ago—I announced it here in the House—they are investigating a variety of schemes. We hope to be able to lay a number of these amended schemes on the Table next year.

We are still involved in other ad hoc investigations to make things more flexible. As the hon member knows, we are involved in the wool industry at the moment. We are making it less regulatory and more marketing oriented. It is correct, therefore, that we shall probably have to change the names of control boards in the Act, because the function of these boards is more marketing oriented than regulatory. I think that we shall have to amend that name at some or other stage, because it is confusing.

I thank hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

*Mr Chairman, this important Bill introduces improvements in regard to the agency sales of agricultural products. The important principle contained in this Bill involves the protection of the person producing a product and selling it by way of a middleman. This Bill will create order and certainty in dealings relating to the handling of certain financial aspects in the sale of various products. It is important to note that agents previously had a cheque account in which the returns on sales were deposited. With the development of the banking industry, interest now has to be paid on cheque accounts. Within the framework of the old legislation there was no way in which the interest on banking account fees could be allocated. The Act will therefore now make provision for its allocation, on a pro rata basis, to the producer and the agent. In terms of this, approximately 65% will go to the agent and 35% to the producer by way of the Fidelity Fund, something which is in the interests of the producer.

The second important change in this legislation relates to co-operatives which may now act as agents. Co-operatives can therefore sell their members’ products on the open market. As a rule, in terms of other legislation, co-operatives function as ordinary agents, functioning under the Agricultural Produce Agency Sales Act, chiefly because co-operatives handle their members’ products. In terms of the Agricultural Produce Agency Sales Act, agencies acted as intermediaries between producers and those eventually selling the product. They then paid the money thus obtained to the producer.

Co-operatives have increasingly begun to function in this way and not to handle members’ products. The legislation therefore now makes provision for co-operatives also to be subject to certain restrictions, particularly in regard to the handling of the monies of non-members. Where co-operatives act as agents, their members must decide, at an annual general meeting, whether they want their marketing campaign to be subject to the Co-operatives Act or to the Agricultural Produce Agency Sales Act. That is therefore the second important aspect that is being changed.

In the past the position has been that the administration of the Act had to be dealt with by the Director-General. He could, as he deemed fit, delegate certain powers to other officers. The Act is at present being amended in such a way that its administration is assigned to a registrar. This would drastically shorten the chain of decision-making. An appeal to the Minister is also being introduced. From our experience of other legislation administered in this way, we know that that legislation functions much more efficiently and purposefully, particularly when problems have to be eliminated.

The last amendment in this Act relates to close corporations which are now also being recognised as corporate bodies in marketing campaigns. There are also minor corrections in regard to definitions. This is being done to bring the Act into line with changes that have taken place, particularly in the constitutional field. The principles of the Act, laid down in 1925, have not changed much. It is merely improvements which are being brought about.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition supports this legislation. In principle this is meritorious legislation which is aimed at providing legal security in respect of the question as to whether this legislation is also applicable to certain co-operatives. This uncertainty arose from the legal relationship that exists between a co-operative and its members and where, in terms of their relationship, marketing does not take place on a commission basis, but on a basis of a distribution of the profits in correspondence with the transactions a specific member concludes with his co-operative. Things brings it into conflict with certain provisions of the Act, and in particular with the provision in respect of the definition of the commission agent. That definition was in conflict with the principles of the Cooperatives Act, which has reference to the relationship between the co-operative and its member. This legislation eliminates that uncertainty, and that is why it is to be welcomed.

The legislation also makes it clear that a co-operative will in fact be able to act as a commission agent in future. This is a matter that gives us all great satisfaction.

It is reassuring that the members of a co-operative can decide themselves whether they want to do their marketing under the Co-operatives Act, or under this Act. I believe that, as I know our farmers, they will consider this with the necessary circumspection and will not taking the wrong decision in this connection.

A further matter that has our approval is the fact that provision is also being made for producers to derive benefit in that they will now be able to share in the interest on the daily balance of trust accounts. We request that in implementing the measure concerning the pro rata ratio according to which this distribution will take place, the producer will not come off second best.

The inclusion of close co-operations in terms of this legislation is a natural consequence of existing measures, and we have no objection to that.

The same applies to the other amendments in this legislation, which facilitate the implementation of the Act and which will bring about a saving on expenses.

On that basis we welcome this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the Agricultural Produce Agency Sales Amendment Bill concerns one of the finest sectors in our agricultural industry. It is one of the sectors in our national economy in which the principle of the free-market system, in which supply and demand determine the prices, is still pursued. As far as I could establish, a market square was first mentioned in Sumerian writings as early as 2000 BC. The first vegetable market in South Africa was established in the Cape in 1680, roughly 300 years ago. The first regulations concerning the functioning of fresh produce markets were promulgated in approximately 1840.

Fresh produce markets in the RSA are relatively old organisations, therefore, which developed from local organisations, such as the old Greenmarket Square here in Cape Town, to the extremely modern enterprises we find in our country today.

Today we have 14 national fresh produce markets to which fresh fruit and vegetables are sent from all over the country, and from where it is distributed to the remotest parts of the country and even to our neighbouring states.

As a result of the urbanisation of the South African population, the development of our country’s infrastructure and the concentration of industrial and mining activities, urban markets have developed relatively quickly whereas the traditional rural markets’ activities have waned. It is interesting that since 1965 there has been a reduction in the number of fresh produce markets from 102 to 16, of which 14 are at present national fresh produce markets in urban areas.

These 14 markets are of national importance, because approximately 26 million people in the RSA, not to mention our neighbouring states, have an interest in what happens at these markets, since this affects every consumer. The thousands of transactions that are arranged at the national markets daily, the prices that are determined there, have a ripple effect even outside our country’s boundaries and influence the purchasing and consumer patterns of millions of people.

Even direct transactions between producer and consumer and between producer and wholesaler, are based on the prevailing market price at that particular moment. In addition the importance of our 14 national fresh produce markets is emphasised by their phenomenal growth. Over the 10 years up to 1985, they showed an increase in turnover from R165 million to R602 million, an increase of almost 265%, despite the fact that the tonnage increased by only about 54% during the same period.

During the most recent financial year, the increase in rand value per metric ton was R83 or approximately 28,5%. I regard that as a remarkable achievement. These figures attest to how market forces within a free-market economy determine prices in a natural way in order to establish real growth. This is also a feather in the cap of our country’s market agents, who generate the turnover at these markets, who reconcile supply and demand, and who determine the prices.

I want to associate myself with the hon member for Ermelo and support this Second Reading of the Agricultural Produce Agency Sales Amendment Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Philip M Crane, a Congress member for Illinois, said the following during an international monetary seminar in Montreal in 1973:

The proposed amendment does not detract from this statement, but I believe that the market agency industry has developed to such an extent that it has reached the stage at which it can be emancipated from Government control to a greater extent.

Upon the request of the Director-General of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, the South African Institute of Market Agents made a submission more than a year ago in respect of the possible privatisation of control over market agents by the establishment of a statutory professional body.

These proposals are within the framework of the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation which was tabled recently, but not much has come of these proposals as yet. Unfortunately it is true—this is how it was reported to me—that the department has indicated that it may take a number of years before legislation in this connection can be brought before this House.

A delay of this kind leads to frustration in the industry and one should be able to eliminate this. It is my opinion that the proposed privatisation of the control over market agents will be to the benefit of the industry as a whole. In addition I believe that such a step should not be delayed by the investigation that is being undertaken by the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets at present. I should like to request that the hon the Minister as well as the hon the Deputy Minister give urgent attention to this matter if it is at all possible.

On behalf of this side of the House I should like to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, one wonders whether or not there were commission agents and livestock auctioneers a couple of thousand years ago in the markets of Sumeria that the hon member Mr Hattingh mentioned. I am sure, however, that the statutory controls which exist now did not apply then.

The principal Act regulates the sale of agricultural produce and certain livestock through these commission agents, livestock auctioneers and statutory agents. Once again, the principles embodied in this Act are not up for discussion.

Nevertheless, the legal uncertainty about the position of co-operatives is cleared up in this Bill, and the attitude towards close corporations is also made clear. The principle is established that an agricultural and a special farmers’ co-operative do not market the agricultural products of their members or affiliated members as commission agents, but only act as commission agents when marketing the produce of non-members.

An additional provision of the Bill sets out procedures to the effect that persons aggrieved by decisions of the registrar may object to such decisions. The procedures for doing so are outlined. This appears to be a reasonably satisfactory provision since a complainant obviously retains his common law rights.

All in all, this Bill brings additional clarity to aspects of the Act and will have our support.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful for hon member’s support also of this Bill. I think this Bill solves many problems and gives a considerable amount of clarity.

The problem experienced by co-operatives that were carrying on non-members’ business is also clearly explained. I should like to comment on something that arose from the hon member Mr Hattingh’s comments on price determination in the fresh produce markets. In the past people always heard about a free economy and that in the end the price was determined by supply and demand. This always creates the impression that there must be an auction where the products lie on one side and the purchasers stand on the other, and then they buy. If there are too few products, the price is high, and if there are a lot of products, the price is low. What is interesting in the national fresh produce markets is that this aspect of auctions is becoming less and less important. A price relating to the quantity and the demand is determined. It is no longer necessary to have an auction. A new dimension of price determination has been created in the fresh produce market, a dimension that is very sensitive, because if supplies suddenly come in, this is reflected in this voluntary price that is paid as well as in the quantity that is being offered. It is very interesting, and the Act therefore provides for better action to be taken in this connection.

As was rightly said, this Bill is really a precursor to privatisation, because some of the arrangements in a market are now under the control of people who are involved in the market. Under the chairmanship of the owner of the market, one can now decide with the producer members and consumers as well as other parties involved which funds are to be levied and how the market is to be managed. It is true that privatisation is the order of the day and that on our part it receives high priority. It is not a simple problem, however.

The submission that was made was exceptionally good, and will definitely be used by the department as a guideline. Its establishment depends on the degree to which subordinate legislation can be created, that is how this concept can function in terms of the rules. Only then shall we be able to lay the necessary legislation on the Table. One should present a complete picture, after all, and not in the end have to resort to piecemeal methods.

I think it is also important to take into account that this legislation as well as the experience we have acquired in connection with privatisation in other branches of agriculture will assist us in drawing up meaningful legislation in terms of which we shall really be able to bring fresh produce under private control.

I also thank the hon member for Bryanston for his support, and I shall confine myself to these words.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr Chairman, since the Bill was considered by the Standing Select Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs, the Rural Areas Act, 1987, has been substituted for the Coloured Representative Council’s Rural Coloured Areas Act, 1979. It is essential, therefore, that paragraph (a) of the definition of local authority be adapted to eliminate any possible uncertainty about which body is meant by the Act. The Community Councils Act, 1977, was also repealed recently. Provision for the establishment of Black local authorities is now being made in an amendment of the Black Administration Act, 1927. The amendment of paragraph (c) of the definition of local authority that has being suggested in this connection is aimed at eliminating any possible uncertainty that may arise. It has been brought to my attention that provision is being made in the relevant ordinances of all four provinces for the establishment of Coloured and Indian and consultative, as well as local affairs and management committees, within the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities. Those committees have such powers, duties and functions as may be transferred to them by the administrators of the respective provinces. It is essential therefore, that for the purposes of the Agricultural Produce Agency Sales Act, those committees be included in the definition of “local authority”.

I consequently move the amendments printed on the Order Paper in my name, as follows:

1. 1. On page 4, from line 28, to omit paragraph (a) and to substitute:
   1. (a) a board of management or board referred to in section 1 of the Rural Areas Act (House of Representatives), 1987 (Act No. 9 of 1987);
2. 2. On page 4, from line 35, to omit paragraph (c) and to substitute:
   1. (c) any local government body established by virtue of the provisions of section 30 (2) (a) of the Black Administration Act, 1927 (Act No. 38 of 1927);
3. 3. On page 4, after line 40, to add:
   1. (e) any Coloured and Indian consultative, local affairs and management committee;

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The objects of the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets are the co-ordinated establishment, development and functioning of the fresh produce markets throughout the Republic. Since these markets are the channel through which a substantial volume of fresh produce for local consumption is marketed, it is essential that they are managed and operated effectively. To achieve this object, the Bill provides for the establishment of a commission to assist in the rationalisation of various matters, such as the siting, erection, extension, alteration and operation of the market.

In order to ensure the proper distribution of fresh produce, the Bill also provides for certain fresh produce markets to be declared national fresh produce markets. At present there are 14 such national markets at various large centres in the Republic. Approximately 60% of the fresh produce for local consumption is marketed through these markets and the two non-declared fresh produce markets at Witbank and Kroonstad. The value of the fresh produce sold at these 16 markets during the year ended on 31 June 1987 amounted to R829,5 million. It can be accepted, therefore, that prices for all fresh produce are basically determined at these markets where supply and demand meet in the free market system.

The Bill also provides for the appointment of a market advisory committee for each of the national fresh produce markets to advise the Minister, the commission and the owner of the market for which it has been appointed, on matters relating to the management, operation and co-ordination of services at that market. The majority of the members of an advisory committee are appointed from among the producers, market agents, trade and consumers under the chairmanship of the owner of the market concerned or his representative. The committees are therefore well suited to protecting the interests of the parties concerned.

†In view of the Government’s deregulation policy and less interference in the affairs of the private sector, provision is made in the Bill for the advisory committees to fulfil a more important role in the fixing of certain tariffs which are determined by the owners of national fresh produce markets and which are now subject to the approval of the Minister. To promote continuity and to enable these committees to operate more meaningfully, it is also proposed to extend the members’ period of office to a maximum of five years.

The other proposed amendments resulted from problems experienced in the administration of the Act. One such problem originates from the restrictive definition in the Act of “fresh produce”. It is now proposed to extend this definition to include, in addition to vegetables and fruit, flowers, ornamental plants, pot plants, culinary herbs and suchlike commodities, sold or offered for sale on a fresh produce market with the approval of the owner of the market.

Mr Chairman, the Bill enjoys the support of, among others, the United Municipal Executive of South Africa, the Institute of Market Masters, the Institute of Market Agents, the Association of Co-operative Market Agents as well as organised agriculture and organised trade and industry.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the fresh produce markets play an important part in the interests of the producer as well as the consumer. No less than 60% of all the fresh produce consumed locally is marketed by these markets and the two non-declared fresh produce markets in Witbank and Kroonstad at present. That is why it is essential that these markets function efficiently and that adjustments are made from time to time to address changing situations. An attempt is being made to do just that by means of the proposed amendments.

The most important proposed amendments are the following. First of all, we are being asked to extend the definition of the concept “fresh produce” as it is currently enshrined in section 1 of the Act. It is being restricted at present by the definition “any kind of vegetable or fruit”. Of late, however, sales of inter alia flowers, bulbs, shrubs and ornamental shrubs at fresh product markets have increased to such an extent that control over them has to be exercised by the owners of the markets. An amendment is therefore being proposed to the effect that all products which may be sold at fresh produce markets in terms of the Agricultural Produce Agency Sales Act, 1975, may now be included in the definition of fresh produce. This is a meaningful recommendation, because at the moment the Act pertains only to certain of the produce which may be sold at these markets.

The second important amendment concerns the tariffs which may be charged by fresh produce markets. The fixing of the market prices that are payable by the producer, remains the responsibility of the Minister since it can have a significant influence on the fresh produce industry. In practice these market prices constitute a percentage of the proceeds from the fresh produce which has been sold on behalf of the producer, and amount to approximately 80% of the markets’ total income.

The determination of other tariffs is being left to the market advisory committees. Most of these advisory committees comprise representatives of the producers, the market agents, commerce and the consumers. The committees are, therefore, representative of everyone who has an interest in the functioning of the markets. They are also in the best position to decide on increasing or decreasing tariffs.

Provision is also correctly being made for the possibility that a dispute may arise between the owner of the market and the market advisory committees with regard to tariffs. If the owner of the market is not satisfied with the advisory committee’s decision, he has the right to appeal to the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets, which will then determine a tariff which he regards as reasonable.

With regard to the provision of the facilities such as cafeterias, cleansing facilities for vehicles and the provision of offices and other accommodation not directly related to the functioning of the market, it is the prerogative of the owner to determine the tariffs himself—without interference from any other organisation.

With the exception of market prices, I think the phasing out of the Minister’s involvement in the fixing of tariffs is a sound principle which should receive our support. It grants greater autonomy to the owners of the markets as well as the market advisory committees, and it also eliminates a great deal of red tape with regard to the fixing of tariffs.

A further amendment concerns the making available of the code of instructions, as is required in terms of section 21 (4) of the Act. In terms of this particular section the approved code has to be published in the Gazette. Since there are only 14 national fresh produce markets in the RSA, and since the code is a lengthy document, it is proposed that copies thereof be made by the department itself and be sent by registered mail to all the owners of the markets. In view of the saving this will effect, this amendment is also to be recommended.

Since the amending Bill enjoys the support of organised agriculture, organised trade and industry, the United Municipal Executive of South Africa, the Institute of Market Masters, the Institute of Market Agents and the Association of Co-operative Market Agents, it is a privilege for me to add the support of the CP.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to support this amending Bill from this side of the House too. We should like to use this opportunity to thank the Official Opposition for their support.

The hon member for Brits examined the amendments very comprehensively, and I am definitely not going to repeat that exercise. I want to agree with the hon member Mr Hattingh that our fresh produce markets are of the utmost importance to our producers and our consumers, and that it is our duty, in the interests of both parties, to ensure that their operations run smoothly. That is where, as the hon member said, we find the free market system operating in its purest form, and we must treasure it.

Since this amendment will facilitate the smooth operation of these markets, I should very much like to support it.

Mr Chairman, the original Act, No 82 of 1970, has one rather strange definition in that a “fresh produce market” is defined as “a place erected or intended for the displaying for sale and the sale of fresh produce in public”. This would mean that any corner greengrocer or cafe could fall into this definition, which was clearly not the intention and would in fact be completely ridiculous. Perhaps the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister could look into this and at some future date come forward with a more reasonable definition.

This amending Bill is again largely technical in that it extends the definition of fresh produce to allow such things as culinary herbs to be sold at fresh produce markets; it eliminates the hon the Minister’s power to fix tariffs for the use of markets and also his power to fix fees payable by producers; and effects the textual amendments as a result of the new constitutional dispensation.

These provisions will have our support and we will not oppose the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am also grateful for the support in this connection. The changes that are being proposed in this Bill will merely lead to a more efficient system for everyone. I also believe that some of the actions that will be taken as a result of this legislation will lead to very positive results.

I am grateful to the hon members who gave such a clear explanation and thank them for their support in this connection.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

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

1. 1. That on page 4, in line 39, after “producer”, to insert “or buyer”.
2. 2. On page 4, from line 46, to omit paragraph (b).

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

1. 1. On page 6, after line 2, to insert:
   1. (b) by the substitution for subsection (5) of the following subsection:
      “(5) The commission may from time to time draw up amendments to a code “[published]” served under subsection (4) and submit such amendments to the Minister for his approval, and the provisions of subsection (3) and (4) shall mutatis mutandis apply to such submission.”; and

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Bill that we are dealing with today is short and uncomplicated, but I think also very essential, firstly, to eliminate certain imperfections in the Prevention and Combating of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act of 1981. Secondly, it makes provision for the simplification of administrative procedures in order to save costs and time for both the Government and the masters and owners of ships.

I shall now deal with the Bill clause by clause. Clause 1 provides that for purposes of the jurisdiction of a court to try an offence, the offence is deemed to have been committed at any place where the accused happens to be. The practical implication hereof is that the area of jurisdiction of a court is extended to areas where it otherwise has no jurisdiction, and that such a court can adjudicate offences committed outside its area of jurisdiction.

I can explain this particular clause in simpler terms. If, for example, a ship is deemed to have committed some form of oil pollution near Cape Town, say, and it then docks in Durban, one has the situation that no provision is made for taking the owner or master of the ship to court as that particular court will not be able to act. This change means that wherever the ship is to be found, the offence is deemed to have been committed at that place. In other words, the owner or master of a ship can be brought to court in Durban, say, although the offence may have been committed in Cape Town.

Clause 2 makes provision for penalties to be paid after admissions of guilt to the Director-General for less serious contraventions, rather than having to appear in court. Emphasis thus falls on a voluntary act which has the advantage for owners and masters who are aware of their guilt that they can pay the fine rather than incur legal costs in a court of law.

I think this is also self-explanatory, because it will be much easier for an owner or master of a ship to admit guilt and to pay a fine, than to have to wait in Durban for an opportunity to appear in court there. One could liken this to the simpler situation where one commits a traffic offence. It is easier not to argue with the traffic cop and pay the fine.

Clause 3 contains the short title of the Bill. That is all that the Bill entails, and I am sure hon members will agree it is reasonable and will promote efficiency. I wish to conclude by mentioning that interested Government departments and the shipping industry were all consulted in advance and are in favour of the implementation of these provisions. Of course, the Bill has been to the standing committee where it was given unanimous support.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, there are parts of the Bill which we support and others which we object to. In particular I want to refer to the fact that the CP supports clause 1 in its entirety. This clause deals with an improvement regarding the determination of jurisdiction. In the past, in offences falling within the framework of the legislation, jurisdiction could only be found on the basis of the place where the offence was committed. In cases where ships were involved it has now also been expanded to include the location of the ship or any place where the person in authority happens to be at any specified time. We support the clause in this connection.

The CP has quite a number of problems concerning clause 2. In particular I want to refer to the fact that this side of the House is opposed to the whole adjudication procedure which is being incorporated by clause 2. I want to refer to it briefly. Clause 2 amends section 30 of the Act by adding inter alia the following subsection to section 30.

1. (3) If any person—
   1. (a) admits to the Director-General that he has contravened any provision of this Act, or that he has failed to comply with any such provision with which it was his duty to comply;
   2. (b) agrees to abide by the decision of the Director-General; and
   3. (c) deposit with the Director-General such sum as that officer may require of him, but not exceeding the maximum fine which may be imposed upon a conviction for the contravention or failure in question,

the Director-General may, after such enquiry as he deems necessary, determine the matter summarily and may, without legal proceedings, order by way of penalty the whole or any part of the said deposit to be forfeited.

It is being left to the discretion of the Director-General. The CP is opposed to the fact that a very important infringement is taking place with regard to the normal administration of justice. We are opposed to the fact that the Director-General may summarily determine a matter, without this matter being adjudicated by the court. We are opposed to the fact that it is stated here that this can be determined “without legal proceedings”. It is the standpoint of this side of the House that an infringement of the rights of interested parties should not be made in this way. It is a very serious infringement when a Bill such as this provides that a matter can be determined summarily without legal proceedings, to say nothing of the question of the Director-General deciding the matter.

The proposed subsection (4), which has to amend section 30 of the Act, goes even further and reads as follows:

1. (4) there shall be a right of appeal to the Minister, whose decision shall be final,…

I emphasize the words “whose decision shall be final”.

It is the standpoint of this side of the House that giving the Minister these powers constitutes an extraordinary infringement. I shall return to that in a moment.

Subsection (5) of section 30 provides:

In order to obviate these problems certain proposals were put forward on the standing committee by the PFP. The CP spokesman agreed with the NP that these procedures proposed by the PFP should be rejected. This does not, however, detract from the fact that the CP has other problems with this formulation, and we should like to present them to the House.

In the first place if one reads the Bill, one sees that we are not trying to score any political debating points off anyone but there are specific problems with regard to the formulation as it stands here. With reference to subsections (3) and (4), the question must be asked whether there is the right of appeal for fines not exceeding R500. The Bill does not deal with that, and it constitutes a legal uncertainty. It is a legal vacuum which is going to present many problems in practice. The Bill merely deals with penalties exceeding R500. If we now consider the subsection which deals with penalties exceeding R500 we see:

For a penalty exceeding R500.

The next question which arises from this is whether the imposition of a fine by the Director-General is final or not. This question too is not dealt with in this formulation in the Bill. Similarly, a legal uncertainty and a legal vacuum exist in this regard.

As far as the right of appeal to the Minister is concerned, this side of the House is aware there is such a thing as an internal administrative law appeal to a Minister. This side of the House has no quarrel as far as that principle is concerned; it is a principle which is incorporated in our administrative law and is applied in practice.

What we have here is not, however, the normal internal administrative appeal to the Minister, what is involved here is a penal provision. This side of the House asks this extremely important question, namely why the procedure cannot be left to the normal mechanisms used for the administration of justice which exist in any sophisticated society such as South Africa. Why must it be removed from the courts and placed in the hands of the Director-General or, in the case of appeal, in those of the Minister? It is the standpoint of this side of the House that this is a disservice to the hon the Minister and the Director-General in that they have to give decisions which do not fall within their normal line of duty. We believe that the hon the Minister and the Director-General would also prefer to have this heavy obligation lifted from their shoulders and preferably transferred to the usual bodies concerned with the administration of justice.

Another problem with which the Bill presents us is that the Minister can decide alone in the case of appeal because the use of the word “final” indicates that the powers of appeal of our courts fall away in this regard. This side of the House’s standpoint is that the courts’ power of appeal should not simply be taken away from them.

We are or might be dealing with large sums of money in regard to the offences under discussion here. It is nothing less than correct that an interested party must be given the right to go to an independent body.

From the other side of the House I hear it being said so easily that the courts must be deprived of this right. This side of the House will adopt a standpoint and watch over the interests of the interested parties in being able to appeal to the courts so that we are not surrendered to the discretion of the executive authority.

Finally, as regards subsection (5)—I also want to present this as a specific case—we find an extraordinary position which is in fact a juridical anomaly. The imposition of a fine by the Director-General or the position after appeal to the Minister is not deemed to be a conviction. A person is fined, the fine may even be very high, but it is not deemed to be a conviction. What is it then? What we are dealing with here hangs in the air.

The subsection states furthermore that although it is not “deemed to be a conviction…, but no prosecution in respect of the offence in question may thereafter be instituted”; formulated differently, no prosecution may subsequently be instituted.

To mention only one juridical implication of what is stated here: Is an interested party entitled to present a plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict? May he or may he not do that?

Comme ci, comme ça.

This is not a matter which can be taken lightly… [Interjections]… because here an infringement is being made, or the question arises as to whether or not an infringement on common law is being made. It is the first time, as far as can be determined, that a provision such as this has been written into our Statute Book. In this case someone has to pay a fine and it is not considered to be a conviction. Yet he cannot subsequently be prosecuted for it again.

As my learned colleague, the hon member for Ermelo, with his many years of experience in the administration of justice, has just said: It is an offence which is not an offence.

For these reasons it is the standpoint of this side of the House based on thoroughly considered juridical principles that we cannot support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, in regard to the corrections referred to by the hon member for Losberg I merely want to say that what applied on the standing committee was the advice we received from the State law advisers. The hon the Deputy Minister was the chairman at the stage, last year in October, when we examined this Bill. I think he will be able to reply to that in full.

All that I merely want to say is that the previous member who represented the CP on the Standing Committee, Mr Ferdie van Heerden, agreed with us in this regard. I therefore have sympathy with the hon member for Losberg if he experiences a number of legal problems in this regard, but we reacted in accordance with what the law advisers we had, said I think I shall leave it at that, so that the hon the Minister can deal with it further.

This Bill must be read in conjunction with the following Bill which also appears on the Order Paper and which is being dealt with this afternoon, namely the International Convention Relating To Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties Bill. These are interrelated Bills; they deal with the same problem. As will also be noted, the Standing Committee also dealt with the two Bills together and in the second Bill we have made a very important amendment to the Bill which was put before us, namely by increasing the fines which are to be imposed from R10 000 to R100 000. I personally think that R100 000 is still too low because if one pays it in pounds it is today R3,34 on the pound, or R2,04 on the dollar.

I should like to request the hon the Minister as well as the Department of Transport Affairs to keep a very watchful eye over this aspect and to see what the consequences are. If it is seen that it does not have the desired effect of combating pollution I request the hon the Minister to refer the legislation to the House and the standing committee so that we can adapt it again and increase these fines.

Pollution at sea is a major problem. It is also an expensive problem and one which is difficult to combat once it has taken place. I am not referring to a bona fide accident; that can happen anywhere. I am referring more to that element of wilfulness which one encounters especially in the tanker industry; where the holds of tankers are cleaned on the high seas. That sticky tar which remains after the petroleum has been pumped out and which is dumped on the high seas, does not break down easily in the ocean. It has been said that months go by before it sinks or is broken down into smaller molecules which can be dealt with.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The Bill which is under discussion at the moment is not concerned with penalties; penalties come under discussion in the next Bill on the Order Paper, which we shall come to in due course.

Order! The hon member for Primrose may proceed.

The hon member for Losberg merely needs to know that I am dealing with the Bill under discussion because it is also concerned with the problem of the penalty which is eventually going to be imposed and to which he objects on legal grounds.

Order! If I have understood the hon member for Losberg correctly, he does not consider the imposition of that amount as a “fine” in the strict sense of the word. The hon member for Primrose’s use of language is his own choice and he may proceed.

The hon member would probably have used “pagina” instead of the other word. So let us keep to my simple Afrikaans and leave his elevated Afrikaans to him and the professors.

The principle under discussion here is that we must proceed to clamp down on these people who pollute the high seas. But getting hold of them remains a problem.

When our sea and our beaches are polluted, South Africa’s tourism and fishing industries, which are worth millions of rands, are threatened by one ship dumping a quantity of oil here. Hitherto we have had problems in clamping down on them. It has been said that we only get hold of a minimal percentage of the offenders. It is difficult to determine who at a specific moment and at a specific place polluted our coast, and when we do in fact determine this they have already left our territorial waters.

I gladly support this Bill as well as the one to be discussed after this, which together make provision for us to be able to punish these offenders by imposing penalties on them. The money can be used in a worthwhile way.

The second part of the Bill is important. We were not sure whether a chief magistrate or a judge should impose the penalty. The hon member who spoke before me expressed his standpoint about this and once again I merely want to state our standpoint. The State’s law advisers gave us this advice and I think that under the circumstances we must for the time being accept the measure as it stands. Depending on what the hon the Deputy Minister says, we can consider it once again if we experience any problems in putting it into practice.

It is a privilege for me to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, anybody who has seen the results of pollution at sea can only be in favour of this particular Bill which is going to make it easier to pursue offenders. I had the misfortune to go on board the Kapodistrias when it was wrecked on Thunderbolt Reef near Port Elizabeth. I had the misfortune to go to the adjacent beaches and to see the harm that had been done to seabirds and to the sealife in general. It was without doubt horrific.

Therefore we welcome anything that we can do to tighten up on legislation that will enable us to gather in these offenders and punish them appropriately so that they do not do similar damage in future.

I was most surprised to hear the hon member for Losberg making the speech that I was going to make in respect of clause 2. As the chairman of the standing committee at that stage will tell you, Sir, Maj Sive, the former member for Bezuidenhout, and I fought very hard on this very principle—that where it comes to legal action we do not believe it should be the right of the State to take decisions. Therefore, for the hon member for Primrose to suggest that they only did so because they took advice from the State Law Advisers, is rather like asking the fox to look after the henhouse in that they are obviously working for the very State to which one is giving these powers. I do not believe these powers should be given to officialdom.

I could see no objection to the amendments that we moved in the standing committee some time ago. We, for instance, moved—because we moved it in that particular committee we would be unable to move it at a Committee Stage on this Bill—to omit the words “the Director-General” on page 2, line 18, and to substitute “a Chief Magistrate”. This would simply mean that if the person was prepared to admit guilt and pay in a certain amount, he could do this to the Chief Magistrate who could then consider the matter. I could see absolutely no reason why the committee and the department that was handling the legislation could not accept that. I do not think it is onerous or difficult.

We also moved to omit all the words after “may” on page 2, line 24, and substitute “to refer the matter for judgment to a Chief Magistrate in Chambers together with such written pleadings as both the Director-General and the person concerned may submit”.

Again, in our view this would not create unnecessary delay and would enable a more proper legal process to take place.

Finally, we do not like a Minister of this Government or, indeed, any government, to be put in a position where an appeal can only be made to him. We believe that any appeals against decisions should be made to a properly appointed judicial officer. For that reason we moved to omit “the Minister” on page 2, in line 28, and to substitute “a judge in chambers”.

We felt that these amendments would be a very distinct improvement in the Bill, and to this day we still regret that the standing committee did not see fit to accept them. I may say to the hon member for Losberg that I wish that he rather than the previous hon member for De Aar had been on the standing committee at that stage to support us in this particular contention.

Be that as it may, we must realise that it is entirely in the hands of the “accused”, if I may call him that, as to whether this process should take place. If, for example, the ship’s captain is accused of causing pollution, but does not want to make an admission to the Director-General and does not want to deposit a sum with the Director-General, then he does not have to do so. There is nothing to compel him to do this.

Ultimately, therefore, when one reaches the end of the road on this legislation it is up to the accused to decide whether the normal legal process is to be followed. Therefore, in the interests of fighting pollution, and particularly oil pollution on the shores of South Africa, we have decided to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I just want to thank hon members for their contributions in respect of this legislation, particularly the hon member for Primrose, who gave the legislation his unqualified support because he realised that we were dealing here with a tremendous problem.

I must honestly say that I was rather surprised by the attitude of the hon member for Losberg regarding this matter. One would have expected the hon member at least to know what the attitude of his party’s previous representative on the standing committee in connection with this legislation had been, but it would appear that they did not consult that former member, who used to serve in this House and now serves on the President’s Council, on this matter at all, because if they had consulted him they would at least have indicated this in that the hon member would have said that he had changed his mind or they had changed their minds since this legislation was before the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

No, not now. If there is time later on I shall give him the opportunity with the greatest of pleasure.

This is to be expected from hon members on that side because from time to time the left hand apparently does not know what the right hand is doing. These hon members would also seem to be totally unaware of the serious problem we are dealing with in respect of oil pollution in this country.

I want to refer hon members to a few incidents which were brought to my attention by the department. In the 1986-87 financial year 135 incidents of oil pollution were reported. The origin of 20% of the incidents was identified. In 80% of the reported incidents the origin could not be ascertained or oil pollution had not really taken place. In four of the 28 incidents reported the masters involved in 14% of the incidents appeared in court and in all four cases, ie 100%, the court imposed fines. The fines varied from R7 000 to R12 000 per incident.

Since September 1975 in 11 cases fines have been imposed by the court which varied from R1 500 to R12 000 per incident. The average fine per incident for the period September 1975 to 31 March of this year was approximately R6 000 per incident. The point which is of importance here is that in the past year there were 135 incidents of oil pollution.

The hon member put forward a wonderful argument in respect of the administration of justice which is not taking place in the way which he and I understand to be the normal administration of justice in South Africa, namely that if a person is accused of having committed a crime, he must appear in court.

Under normal circumstances one cannot argue with this, and I have no quarrel with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central either. However that hon member came along and helped the hon member for Losberg out of his predicament. What did the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central say? He said: “There is nothing in this Bill to compel the accused to accept the fine”. That is the point. A person who has committed a so-called offence in respect of oil pollution is not being compelled by the legislation to accept this procedure. He can say that he refuses to do so; that he prefers to go to court and that the court can find him guilty.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

No, Sir, those hon members must give me a chance now. I listened to their arguments, and now they must listen to me.

Today it is the normal procedure when a person commits a traffic offence, for example speeding, and is fined, that he can decide whether or not to go to the traffic department and pay that fine. [Interjections.] Otherwise he can decide that he is not guilty and follow the normal procedure and try to prove this in court. The court can then decide whether or not he is guilty. One does not need a lawyer to know that.

Yes, but you need one! [Interjections.]

One does not need a lawyer to know that one has that choice in life. In this case that accused also has that choice if he thinks that he is innocent in this regard. He has that choice, and nothing compels him to be subject to the dictates of the Director General.

This legislation is not an isolated incident. If that hon member had read the legislation as well as the memorandum which follows it carefully, which his party’s previous representative on the Committee should actually have given to him, he need only have read the following point and he would have realised that I am right. It reads:

This is what is being done.

You still do not understand!

This is actually an opportunity for the person who has possibly committed an offence to go to court if he is sure that he did not commit it. If he is prepared to make an admission of guilt, this provision makes it easier and cheaper for him than going to court, because those extra costs are not involved. That is why this provision was made in this legislation.

But he does not know beforehand what the fine is going to be.

He knows the fine cannot be higher than the amount mentioned in this legislation. If it is not that high there is still the opportunity to get the balance back. The hon member for Losberg knows this and the legislation states very clearly:

How much is that?

I think the maximum fine is R20 000. If one looks at the original legislation one sees that after the investigation the Director General may… [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon member for Losberg cannot say what he likes across the floor of this House as he sees fit. Something else which is bothering me is that some hon members are almost shouting across the floor of the House. This must not happen again. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I want to point out to the hon member that he should have read this. It reads:

Mr Chairman, will you please give us an explanation of the ruling you have just given? Are you forbidding interjections at this stage?

My ruling was quite clear, and I said precisely what I meant. The hon member can go and read later that I said so in no uncertain terms. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I also want to advance the argument that this legislation did not materialise out of thin air. It served before the standing committee. The hon member for Losberg could have acquainted himself with this. In this memorandum it is stated very clearly which institutions and organisations were involved.

Order! I feel that in fairness to the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition I owe him an explanation. I did not forbid interjections. I am sorry that my previous reply did not answer his question and I feel that I owed him, as the Chief Whip of the party, an explanation.

The hon member could have read which departments were consulted and which organisations were consulted in this regard. They had no objection to this legislation. In spite of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central’s efforts through which, according to him, he tried to improve the legislation in the standing committee he agreed to the legislation. I am therefore totally astounded by the attitude of the hon members of the CP. Nevertheless I want to say that I think this legislation enjoys general support. I do not think anyone in this House or in the other two Houses objected to the fact that we must combat oil pollution in South Africa.

I should like to express my thanks to the standing committee for the way in which they handled this legislation. I think the reason for this is obvious. We are waging a never-ending struggle against the pollution of our beaches. Oil on the sea and on the beaches not only destroys the marine life but keeps people, whether they be tourists or holidaymakers, away from our popular resorts. I have already given hon members examples of actions which had to be taken.

For the further information of hon members I can mention that up to October 1985 the Department of Transport dealt with the combating and prevention of pollution by oil. As a result of the Cabinet’s policy of rationalisation, and on the recommendation of the Commission for Administration, it was however decided that from 1 October 1985 the prevention and the combating aspects should be separated. From then on the Department of Transport dealt with the prevention of oil pollution, and the Department of Environment Affairs dealt with combating it. In the past there was a contract in terms of which we hired four coast guard vessels and an aircraft to patrol the territorial waters on a scheduled basis. The Department of Environment Affairs has taken over this contract.

I also want to say something about the legislation itself. The amendment contemplated in terms of clause 1, namely the insertion of subsection (4) in section 20 of the principal Act is in my opinion absolutely essential. Our courts have a limited jurisdiction. It is limited to areas. When an offence was committed, for example in the territorial waters of Cape Town, and the ship had already anchored in Port Elizabeth or Durban, up to now the local court could therefore not try the case. Once this amendment has been agreed to the trial can take place where the ship is, and not necessarily where the offence was committed.

†Therefore, I think this is a good and a welcome change. The chances of alleged culprits getting away will now be reduced. Secondly, the cost involved in prosecution will also become less to the State. There will possibly also be fewer offenders.

I have already dealt with clause 2, which has to do with the rights of the master or owner of a ship in the event of his admission of guilt or otherwise.

I think there is one other important issue of which we should take note, and that is that experience has taught us and the State, insofar as the application of the Merchant Shipping Act is concerned—I have already mentioned that that Act contains a similar section—that masters of ships prefer to admit guilt and to pay a fine, rather than to face a charge in court. Court cases cause delays which can mean thousands of rands of additional costs such as harbour fees, fuel costs and loss of income. Furthermore, it also seems to be the accepted practice in the international shipping industry to admit guilt for minor offences and to pay the relevant fines.

*If one takes all these matters into consideration, in my opinion this legislation is essential, and hon members should give it the support it deserves.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Again we are going to deal with a reasonably short bill which aims at giving legal form to the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties. Our Republic acceded in 1986 to this convention which was adopted by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation in Brussels on 29 November 1969. Its provisions became effective in the republic during September 1986.

After enactment of this Bill which can be enforced jointly or severally with analogous existing legislation, such as the Prevention and Combating of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act of 1981—the amendment of which we have just dealt with—and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships Act of 1986, the necessary measures will exist to minimise the risk of oil pollution of the Republic’s coastline and to preserve its marine assets. The convention will apply on the high seas in the event of maritime casualties.

You mean the hon member for Lenasia East.

Yes of course. Thank you Mr Chairman.

The convention will apply on the high seas in the event of maritime casualties. Its provisions are of a divergent nature and provide, inter alia, for such matters as the payment of compensation subsequent to any act by the contracting state after conciliation or arbitration.

I do not propose to deal further with the convention which is self-explanatory, but wish to elaborate on the various aspects of the Bill.

Clause 1 deals with the definitions. Clause 2 provides for the enforcement of the convention in the Republic and also authorises the State President to do whatever necessary to ratify or cause to be ratified any amendments or additions thereto.

Clause 3 empowers the Minister to promulgate regulations to give effect to any provision of the convention and to prescribe fees and provide for the recovery of costs incurred in connection with its application. Furthermore it empowers the Minister to prescribe penalties for the contravention or failure to comply with this provision. Oil pollution constitutes such a serious threat to our beaches and natural resources that the standing committee deemed it necessary to recommend that the maximum penalty for a contravention of a serious nature be increased from the proposed fine of R10 000 or imprisonment for three years to R100 000 or imprisonment for ten years. I support the notion of the standing committee and also wish to thank them for their well-considered proposal.

Clause 4 has two objectives, namely, to extend the area of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to extend the area and punitive jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts.

Clause 5 obviously contains the short title of the Bill.

I should like to reiterate what I said in regard to the previous Bill, that this Bill enjoys the support of the shipping industry, and I think one can call on members of this House to do likewise.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, this side of the House supports the Bill but we would like to point out quite a number of facets which ought to be cleared up in future.

In the first place, we want to mention the fact that we are dealing here with the incorporation of an international law treaty into an Act of Parliament in order to validate those provisions of the treaty in the internal operation of the South African legal system.

However, we do want to refer to clause 2 (2) in which certain safeguards are being incorporated regarding amendments which can be made to the Convention and which only need to be ratified by the State President. It is the standpoint on this side of the House that this safeguards is not sufficient to counteract legal abuse.

It is the CP’s standpoint that treaties which South Africa enters into should in future also be discussed in Parliament and should not acquire force of law merely by means of an act on the part of the executive authority—by which South Africa then enters into a treaty. These matters must be debated properly in Parliament.

We can refer to quite a number of legal systems—in fact all the legal systems in Western society—in which Parliament acquires the opportunity to decide whether the country concerned wishes to enter into an international treaty or not. The position in South Africa is, however, that the executive authority decides and Parliament does not have a say in this regard except when it is presented by way of a proclamation, by way of the 14 days’ provision, which is a way in which it can be discussed.

Finally, the CP would like to refer to clause 3 (2) of the Bill which incorporates a far-reaching principle. Subsection (2) provides that by means of a regulation penalties not exceeding R10 000 or 10 years imprisonment may be prescribed. It is the standpoint of this side of the House that it would be preferable to have penalties of this nature determined by means of legislation. We consider it to be an unhealthy legal principle that a regulation can prescribe penalties and that those penalties can be increased or decreased by means of executive action on the part of the executive authority. It is the standpoint of this side of the House that Parliament should also retain a joint say in this regard.

If we examine subsection (4) we do in fact also see the implications this has. Therein it is specified that any regulation referred to in subsection (3)—ie the subsection introducing the heavy penalties—may be disapproved of by a resolution passed by the three Houses and such a resolution by a House may subsequently be considered to be a resolution amending the regulation in question.

It is the standpoint on this side of the House that this is not conducive to sound administration of justice, namely that Parliament is not consulted in this way initially with the application of the penalty in question, and that we merely are able to say that a decision of a House has the same force as that of a law.

Despite these objections, the CP is inclined to support this Bill, precisely because it is our standpoint that accidents arising from oil pollution have to be combated.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to thank the hon member for Losberg very sincerely for his support for this legislation. He referred to a few matters. I am sure the hon the Minister will elaborate further on those matters. I shall come to some of these matters in a moment. As with the previous legislation extensive consultation took place in respect of this Bill. In addition to all the Government Departments and Government law advisers who were consulted, discussions were also held with inter alia Soekor, Assocom and quite a few other organisations who are affected by this Bill.

As the hon member for Primrose has said, this Bill is closely associated with the Bill which we have just agreed to. This very short Bill seeks to validate the international convention concerning intervention on the high seas in cases of accidents leading to oil pollution. By this means together with the other existing legislation, the threat which oil pollution poses to South African coastlines can be limited. Firstly, this legislation merely seeks to enable the hon the State President to do all things necessary to ratify or cause to be ratified any amendments of or additions to the Convention and secondly, to empower the hon the Minister to make regulations in order to prescribe any matter which he may deem necessary, matters such as fees, the recovery of any expenditure incurred in connection with the application of the Convention, and penalties for any contraventions.

As far as the penalties are concerned, I am of the opinion that there was a large measure of unanimity among members of the standing committee. Originally the penalties were only R10 000 and three years’ imprisonment. At the insistence of all the members of the standing committee these penalties were increased to R100 000 and 10 years’ imprisonment. This merely goes to show how serious this whole matter is.

I merely want to say that we gladly support this legislation and we thank the hon members of the Opposition for their support.

Mr Chairman, the PFP will also be supporting this Bill. The only thing that I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister is why it took so long for us to comply with the International Convention. It seems to me that we were a bit dilatory in actually giving effect to this particular convention in South Africa. If the hon the Deputy Minister can explain it briefly to me, I would like to know something about the reasons why it took so long.

The hon member for Losberg had certain problems with regard to the hon the Minister’s power to regulate, and the fines that could result from a contravention of any of the regulations. I would like to point out to him that the Minister can only make regulations in order to give effect to a provision of the convention. That means he cannot in fact pull out of the air any number of things that he wishes to make regulations on. It has to be in order to give effect to any provision of the convention, and then he can prescribe fees etc. Basically, however, that regulation has to be related to a provision of the convention, which is something that obviously has been the subject of intense international discussion. I do not think we are going overboard in that we are giving the hon the Minister too many powers in this particular case. We on these benches have of course always fought tooth and nail against extensions of power to Ministers. In this particular case, however, we do not feel that it creates any problems, and we will therefore be supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my thanks to hon members for their contributions. I want to start at once with the hon member for Losberg. The hon member would seem to have objections to clause 2. He feels in particular that treaties, conventions and so on should rather be discussed in Parliament.

I want to refer the hon member to the Constitution of the RSA—the Constitution of the new dispensation. The hon member will find that in section 6 it is very clearly spelled out that the head of the Republic shall be the State President. The State President shall, subject to the provisions of the Constitution Act, have the power to do the following inter alia:

1. (e) to enter into and ratify international conventions, treaties and agreements.

This is therefore a power which the State President has to act on our behalf. That hon member, as well as every other hon member in this House, can reject or accept this legislation, because that international convention which we have accepted is laid down in this legislation. The hon member is under no obligation to accept it, and therefore he does have an opportunity to say whether or not he agrees with the convention. Of course I feel—I think most hon members feel the same way—that this is a matter with which we can agree because it is in the interests of South Africa and because oil pollution is being combated in this way.

The hon member also objected to clause 3 because according to him the fines prescribed by way of regulation are far too high. However, the maximum fine and the maximum period of imprisonment were mentioned. I want to point out to the hon member—I think the hon member for Bethlehem also did so—that the standing committee made the change itself because we were of the opinion that the fine and the period of imprisonment were inadequate. Yet again, I feel, it was the wish of this Parliament, as expressed by the standing committee, to take that decision. As far as I can remember we have often agreed to legislation in this Parliament in terms of which fines could be laid down by way of regulation. Here it is defined in the legislation.

I nevertheless want to thank the hon member for supporting this Bill.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central asked why it took us so long to adopt the convention. May I point out to the hon member that the convention was adopted for the first time in 1969 but that countries only started to implement it in 1975. So they took six years before they started to implement it.

But you have taken 18 years.

Oh no, we accepted the convention only last year and we are going to implement it this year.

But why did it take you so long to accept it?

So, I do not think it has taken us such a long time.

*The hon member must remember that this kind of thing also involves international negotiation. In the process many things had to be cleared up properly before South Africa could agree to this convention. I nevertheless want to thank the hon member for his support in this regard.

I also want to thank the hon member for Bethlehem, who spoke on behalf of the NP, most sincerely for his support. I know that he will always make a good contribution in the standing committee. Because this is the first time he has acted as the secretary of our group I want to congratulate the hon member and express the hope that he will play an exceptional role in this study group.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Architects’ Act, 1970, provides for the establishment of the South African Council for Architects which is entrusted with the registration of architects and architects in training and generally all matters pertaining to the enhancement of the profession. In terms of the principal Act, many of its decisions are subject to ministerial approval. The Minister has to approve the manner in which an applicant may apply for registration as an architect; the fees payable in respect of such registration; the levies payable to the council for purposes of the training and education of architects; and many other matters of a similar domestic nature. It is really not necessary for the council’s domestic affairs to be subject to ministerial approval. It not only creates a mass of unnecessary work, but also casts a shadow over the autonomy of the council. More recent legislation such as the Valuers’ Act, 1982, and the Town and Regional Planners’ Act, 1984, limit the Minister’s involvement to the appointment of members of the council, the reservation of work and the prescription of fees chargeable for professional services rendered.

It has therefore been decided in consultation with the South African council for Architects to submit this Bill to Parliament with a view to removing all unnecessary Government involvement in the day to day affairs of the council. The bulk of the amendments proposed in the Bill deal with this aspect. The Minister retains his powers in regard to (a) the appointment of members of the council, (b) the reservation of work for architects, and (c) the prescription of a tariff of fees applicable to architects.

Regarding the latter two aspects, namely work reservation and statutory tariffs, hon members will no doubt remember that we addressed these matters when other professional legislation was dealt with earlier today. The same arguments which were advanced there apply here, namely that the reservation of work should only be considered if it is in the interest of the public. Injudicious reservation of work can be inflationary and may only serve the interests of the relevant profession. Furthermore, it is regarded as unjustified intervention by the State in the choice which consumers or employers have in regard to whom they wish to employ. Negotiations therefore took place between the Competition Board and the South African Council for Architects, and as a result, the Bill provides that in future, work may only be reserved for architects with the concurrence of the Competition Board.

The Competition Board also dealt with the present practice of fixed tariffs for professional services. Those against the removal of such fixed tariffs argue that price competition will lower professional standards. The Competition Board, however, points out that professions overseas that have done away with fixed tariffs have not experienced a lowering of standards. On the contrary, important benefits, such as greater efficiency, cost awareness and even lower tariffs were brought about.

The Bill, therefore, also provides that an architect and his client may negotiate a tariff payable for professional services, and only if the parties do not reach agreement, or in cases where no tariff was negotiated, will a prescribed tariff of fees apply. This is an important step towards deregulation and I am sure that it will have a favourable impact on costs.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, you will pardon me if I comment on how restful it has been for the past couple of days and also express my pleasure at the degree of consensus that has been arrived at. You will forgive us for thinking on this side of the House that it was perhaps prearranged in order to give the hon the State President a couple of days’ rest to get over the traumas of last week when he lost his left hand and his mouth.

However, Mr Chairman, referring to the Bill before us today I wish to state that we on this side of the House have already stated our views regarding deregulation in that we do not have objections to the principle of deregulation. This amending Bill and also the three following amendments are all examples of the kind of deregulation we on this side of the House are prepared to and can support and will support. It is quite clear to us that the professional body concerned has been involved and it is also clear that they are supportive of this specific measure.

The amending Bill will also result in a cost reduction in the cost of services to the consumer. It will also eliminate unnecessary work with the accompanying saving in time and cost. It also gives the SA Council for Architects a larger degree of autonomy.

We on this side of the House therefore have no difficulty in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House greatly appreciate the Official Opposition’s support for this Bill. We certainly have greater appreciation for their support than for the hon member’s introductory remarks.

This Bill is one of a group of five or six which were dealt with by the then Standing Committee on Communications and Public Works towards the end of last year, and I am happy to say that, because they were very similar in nature, the committee dealt with all of them in a matter of 30 to 40 minutes. There was complete consensus in the standing committee.

I am happy to support this Bill because it is basically aimed at the removal of restrictive practices embodied in the principal Act which have perhaps been shown to be unnecessary.

*In the life any people, the architecture of a community is one of the best indications and one of the most sophisticated characteristics of the culture handed down from generation to generation. In our case this is certainly no exception. I think that in South Africa we have a rich diversity of cultures which have influenced one another, this influence having manifested itself in South Africa’s architecture.

Over the centuries we have drawn architects of great repute from several of the nations of Europe. We think of Anreith, the German; Thibault, the Frenchman; and Adam, the Englishman of the previous century. One can recall Sir Herbert Baker, Gerhard Moerdyk and others of a later generation. Through a mutual exchange of cultural influences these people succeeded in creating a unique South African architecture for posterity.

I want to come back to the Bill itself. The architectural profession has been subject to regulation from as far back as 1927 when the first Architects and Quantity Surveyors (Private) Act was passed by the South African Parliament. For the past 60 years the Institute of SA Architects has controlled two important facets in the lives of architects. The first is the training of our architects, but through its heritage committee this institute has also played a major role in the conservation of South Africa’s architectronic heritage.

This Bill provides for certain practices in regard to the tariff of fees and the reservation of work no longer being prescribed by the State. There was general consensus—I have little doubt that in this Parliament there will also be general consensus—about the fact that this profession has already indicated that it acts with a great sense of responsibility when it comes to the training of architects and the preservation of the work done by architects, and that we can very confidently feel free to place more extensive powers in the hands of the organised profession.

We gladly support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this party supported the Bill in the standing committee. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister indicated why this legislation was necessary and he motivated it.

The hon member for Umlazi has also indicated why this legislation is now to be on our Statute Book. I do not intend to repeat the points that were made. It is a Bill which we support and which is part of a series which aims at deregulating professions. We believe this Bill will open up the profession to people who should also be involved with architects and we therefore support it.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members who participated in the debate for the contribution they made. This includes the hon member, Comdt Derby-Lewis, who pointed out that they supported the legislation. I want to thank them for their support. This legislation also embodies a certain degree of deregulation.

The hon member for Umlazi pointed out the importance of architecture in our cultural heritage. It is indeed true that architecture is a very important component of our cultural heritage.

I also want to thank the hon member for Durban Central for his support of this Bill.

I should like to content myself with these few words.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Quantity Surveyors’ Act, 1970, provides for the establishment of a South African Council for Quantity Surveyors which is entrusted with the registration of quantity surveyors and quantity surveyors in training, and generally all matters pertaining to the enhancement of the profession. In terms of the principal Act, many of its decisions are subject to ministerial approval. For instance, the Minister has to approve the manner in which an applicant may apply for registration as a quantity surveyor, the fees payable in respect of such registration, the levies payable to the council for purposes of training and education of quantity surveyors, and many more matters of a similar domestic nature.

*It really is not necessary for the council’s domestic affairs to be subject to ministerial approval. Not only does this create a mass of unnecessary work, but it also casts a shadow over the autonomy of the council. More recent legislation like the Valuers’ Act, 1982, and the Town and Regional Planners’ Act, 1984, limits the Minister’s involvement to the appointment of members of the relevant council, the reservation of work and the prescription of fees payable for professional services rendered. It has therefore been decided in consultation with the South African Council for Quantity Surveyors to submit this Bill to Parliament with a view to removing all unnecessary Government involvement in the day to day affairs of the council. Most of the amendments proposed in the Bill deal with this aspect.

†The Minister retains his power in regard to:

1. (a) The appointment of members of the council;
2. (b) the reservation of work for quantity surveyors; and
3. (c) the prescription of a tariff of fees applicable to quantity surveyors.

Regarding the reservation of work, it is now generally accepted that it should only be considered if it is in the interests of the public. Injudicious reservation of work can be inflationary and may serve only the interests of the relevant profession. Furthermore, it is regarded as unjustified intervention by the State in the choice which consumers or employers have in regard to whom they wish to employ.

Negotiations therefore took place between the Competition Board and the South African Council for Quantity Surveyors. As a result, the Bill provides that in future the reservation of work for quantity surveyors may only be done with the concurrence of the Competition Board.

*The Competition Board also dealt with the present practice of fixed tariffs for professional services. Those against the removal of such fixed tariffs contend that price competition will lower professional standards. The Competition Board points out, however, that professions abroad which have done away with fixed tariffs did not experience a lowering of standards. On the contrary, important benefits such as greater efficiency, cost-awareness and even lower tariffs resulted.

The Bill therefore also provides that a quantity surveyor and his client may negotiate the tariff payable for professional services, and a prescribed tariff of fees will apply only if the parties have not concluded an agreement in this respect. This is an important step towards deregulation and I am sure it will have a favourable impact on costs.

†Mr Speaker, the Bill also contains amendments regarding various other matters. For instance, it will no longer be necessary for the Minister to make regulations regarding the various matters, mostly of a domestic nature, relating to the workings of the council. In future the council itself will regulate such matters by means of rules.

Lastly I should like to mention that provision is now being made for quantity surveyors to form close corporations in terms of the Close Corporations Act, 1984. The Bill deals with this aspect in great detail, which naturally is essential, since the interests of both the profession and the public are involved. The South African Council for Quantity Surveyors is in agreement with the amendments contained in this Bill.

Mr Chairman, firstly this legislation aims at clarifying the administrative regulation of the composition and functions of the SA Council for Quantity Surveyors and transferring some of those functions, at present in the hands of the Minister, to the SA Council for Quantity Surveyors so that surveyors can take care of their own affairs.

A quantity surveyor is someone whose work it is to toil behind the scenes calculating the costs involved in erecting a building after the architects, about whom the hon member for Umlazi spoke in such glowing terms, have drawn the plans for a beautiful building. The quantity surveyor also calculates the cost of each piece of building material to be used in that building, together with the cost of the labour and all other relevant costs. Thereby the actual costs of the building are determined even before a single brick has been laid.

In terms of the Act, or in terms of certain arrangements, the fees of quantity surveyors were fixed. These were prescribed fees which neither the quantity surveyor not the architect could lay down for the very important services which the quantity surveyor furnished to the architect and his client. This measure now provides, amongst other things—it is an exciting new principle which is involved here—that the quantity surveyor’s fees or tariffs can be negotiated. It is very interesting, because once a building, as designed by those architects whom the hon member for Umlazi was describing, is constructed and the quantity surveyor has calculated the cost involved, the building is sold by an estate agent.

Let me say that as far as my knowledge goes, that agent’s fees are not negotiable and his commission exceeds in value the cost of the bricks used in the building. I therefore think that this principle of negotiating fees and commission could be extended to very many more aspects involving organisations and professional bodies, as determined by us.

This measure also provides for the fact that the delimitation of work for quantify surveyors can only be done in co-operation with the Competition Board. This would prevent the SA Council for Quantity Surveyors from arrogating to itself work which could be done more cheaply by other bodies and, conversely, work which cannot be done as efficiently by other bodies will be reserved for quantity surveyors.

I therefore think that the Competition Board’s involvement in the delimitation of work for quantity surveyors could also profitably be extended to the functions of professional bodies such as the SA Council for Quantity Surveyors. We should like to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis has supplied the underlying motivation for the CP’s support of the legislation concerning certain professions which has come before the House. The same motivation applies to the amending Bill before us at present. I do not want to add anything more, except to say that the CP also supports it.

Mr Chairman, we in the PFP will also support this measure, which is an agreed measure in that it moves away from restrictive practices which amounted to job reservation.

It is interesting to see how times have changed. In years gone by, when I served on a body which looked at legislation governing the operations of quantity surveyors, the philosophy of the Government was totally different. It is now very nice to see this relaxation of restrictions. On the absolute assumption held in the standing committee that the quantity surveyors themselves supported this legislation, we are very happy to go along with it.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members for their participation in this debate.

*Seen in the light of the fact that this is an uncontentious piece of legislation, I shall content myself with thanking hon members for their support of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

In its report titled “Strategy for Small Business Development and for Deregulation”, the Committee for Economic Affairs of the President’s Council also gave attention to the restrictions on professions and pointed out the need for deregulation. The Competition Board was therefore instructed to investigate and to make recommendations on meaningful deregulation in this regard. Two of the restrictions which were identified were the reservation of certain kinds of work for specific professions and the prescription of the tariff of fees to which a member of a profession is entitled for professional services rendered.

It has been argued that the strategy of reservation for members of a specific profession creates a statutory monopoly. As such a monopoly could be detrimental to the public interest, the reservation of work must be approached carefully. Injudicious reservation of work could be inflationary and might only serve the interests of the relevant profession. It is furthermore regarded as unfair intervention by the State in the choice consumers or employers have as to whom they wish to employ. It is however, also true that in certain cases the reservation of work might be in the public interest, especially where it aims at the protection of the public. It is therefore no simple matter and each application for the reservation of work will have to be evaluated on its own merits.

The Competition Board gave the matter considerable attention and negotiations between the board and the statutory boards of several professions have already taken place. The Bill now under consideration provides that in future the reservation of work for professional land surveyors and technical surveyors, excluding cadastral surveys and mining surveys which are statutorally required, may only be done with the concurrence of the Competition Board.

Another restriction which was dealt with is the prescription of a minimum tariff for professional services. Those against the removal of such a fixed tariff argue that price competition will lower professional standards. In reply to this argument the Competition Board points out that fixed minimum tariffs in no way guarantee high professional standards. Professions overseas which have already done away with fixed tariffs did not encounter a lowering in standards. On the contrary, important benefits like greater efficiency, cost awareness and even lower tariffs were brought about. The Bill therefore also provides that the professional land surveyor or technical surveyor and his clients may now negotiate the tariff payable for professional services and only if the parties do not reach agreement will the prescribed tariff of fees apply.

I would also like to mention that the amendments proposed in this Bill are in accordance with the amendments proposed for the other professional legislation administered by the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs. These are the legislations pertaining to valuers, town and regional planners, quantity surveyors, architects, engineers and quality surveyors.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the CP also supports this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, since I was a member of the standing committee, permit me, on behalf of this side of the House, to express my gratitude to the hon the Minister for this piece of legislation. I think I am also speaking on your behalf, Mr Chairman, since you are a qualified land surveyor. I think that you yourself, as the only person in this Parliament with that qualification, support this legislation. Let me also just tell the hon the Minister that I am grateful for the fact that these few Bills have been passed this afternoon. I think I was the one who, in 1985, proposed that these bodies be placed under the hon the Minister’s department and I am therefore grateful to see that this has, in fact, been done.

We on this side of the House supported the legislation in the standing committee and we again support it.

Mr Chairman, the PFP also supports the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members for Brits, Boksburg and Durban Central for their support of this legislation. Since there is a large degree of unanimity, and no major points of disagreement, I shall content myself with these few words.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Valuers’ Act of 1982 was placed on the Statute Book in order to regulate the valuers’ profession in so far as it relates to fixed property. The principal Act therefore provides for the establishment of a South African Council of Valuers empowered to register persons in terms of the Act, to determine requirements for such registration, to exercise discipline and to undertake related steps for the advancement of the profession.

It has now become necessary to bring about certain amendments to the Act in order to keep pace with present-day requirements. I will now deal with the reasons for the proposed amendments.

The statutory reservation of work for members of a specific profession has in recent times been in the limelight as it has been labelled a statutory monopoly which places the profession concerned in a nearly unassailable position. Such a monopoly is not always in the public interest and statutory reservation of work must therefore be approached with the greatest care. Arguments have been advanced that injudicious reservation of work is inflationary and only serves the interests of the profession concerned. Furthermore, it is regarded as unfair intervention by the State in the choice consumers or employers have in regard to whom they wish to employ. However, there certainly are cases where the reservation of work may be in the public interest, especially where the protection of the public is concerned. The Competition Board has already given the matter considerable attention and negotiations between the Board and various statutory boards have taken place.

The amendment Bill now under consideration provides that the reservation of work for valuers may only be done with the concurrence of the Competition Board. The Competition Board will therefore be directly involved in work reservation and will be able closely to monitor this important matter.

I would also like to mention that the proposed amendment is in accordance with amendments proposed in regard to the other professional legislation administered by the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs, namely legislation pertaining to town and regional planners, land surveyors, quantity surveyors, architects and engineers.

The principal Act also provides that the South African Council for Valuers shall on the application of any person over the age of 45 years and who has for a continuous period of not less than 15 years been engaged in the performance of work in property valuation, register such a person as a valuer even though he does not possess the formal qualifications required by the Act. The registration is, however, subject to the condition that such a person must pass the examinations prescribed for valuers within a maximum period of seven years. This provision is very unpopular with valuers who have thus been registered, because the danger exists that their registration will lapse if they do not pass the examinations. At that stage such a valuer has been practising at least 20 years and the summary cancellation of his registration may cause serious hardship. The council has therefore requested that the compulsory examinations for those valuers be deleted.

The council has also brought a shortcoming in the principal Act to our attention. In practice it has been found that there is a demand for registration as an associated valuer in training. The Act, however, only provides for the registration of a valuer in training. In order to cater for the person who wishes eventually to register as an associated valuer, such as a valuer in the employ of a building society, a new category, namely associated valuer in training has to be created. The amendment proposed in clause 4 addresses this shortcoming in the Act.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the CP also supports this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, this legislation was discussed by professional bodies. They gave it their stamp of approval. Those of us who served on the standing committee, discussed the matter and reached consensus. We unanimously approved the Bill.

This is perhaps a fitting opportunity, since these Bills are now being finalised, to thank the former chairman of our standing committee, the hon member for Umlazi, for his years of service as chairman of the standing committee and for the consensus achieved in having all this legislation passed. We thank him very sincerely for that.

We should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we supported this Bill in the standing committee, and we shall do so again today.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members for their participation and for their support of this legislation. I shall content myself with those few words.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.