on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Seventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 14 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Ninth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs, dated 16 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 16 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 16 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the CP objects to this motion by the hon the Leader of the House. It is, of course, another indication of the failure of the new dispensation. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, what has given rise to these events we are now witnessing? Up to 23 August matters went quite smoothly. On 23 August Rev Hendrickse left the Cabinet, however. We are not sure whether he resigned or was dismissed, but whatever happened, he is no longer in the Cabinet.

Suddenly things no longer went smoothly. The reason for this was that the Labour Party was no longer committed to Cabinet decisions in which the Leader of the Labour Party participated. In other words Bills which were referred to standing committees in the past, went through because the Leader of the Labour Party was committed and he committed his party. Now that Rev Hendrickse is no longer a member of the Cabinet, that flow has stopped. Now things are no longer running smoothly, and Parliament as a whole comes to a standstill while we wait for the Bills to come back to us from the standing committees.

The Labour Party is throwing a spanner in the works and the Bills are not going through the standing committees. Now Parliament as a whole must wait for the standing committees to complete their work. There is a spanner in the works now, because the Labour Party is waiting for the “chocolates”. This is the problem. [Interjections.]

They cannot buy them.

This has resulted in Parliament having to suspend business so that the standing committees can complete their business. According to the Order Paper only two standing committees will be sitting tomorrow, as well as the Subcommittee on Rules for Joint Business. In other words, 46 members are involved—in the two standing committees, consisting of 23 members each—plus, say, 10 or 15 other hon members serving on this subcommittee. In other words tomorrow afternoon approximately 61 hon members will meet in standing committees, and perhaps a few other standing committees, which are now waiting to see what will happen tomorrow, will also meet.

In other words, between 60 and 100 hon members will probably be occupied tomorrow in standing committees. Parliament, however, has 308 hon members. The other 208 hon members will therefore not be productively occupied for the purpose for which Parliament convened, which was to sit. [Interjections.]

Now the question is, who pays for that while Parliament comes to a standstill. The taxpayer, of course.

It makes one think back involuntarily to last year when we assembled for 20 days to discuss a Bill on the National Council. The Bill, however, never appeared. We waited for it for 20 days, but it never materialised. Now it is on our desks, however, and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is in a hurry to pilot it through. Last year it cost the State R1 million per day while Parliament sat here waiting for the Bill on the National Council. Now the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is suddenly in a hurry have it dealt with. While the standing committees are deliberating on that Bill, however, Parliament must wait. Is this productivity? This House should be setting an example in the sphere of productivity. Parliament, however, comes to a standstill while the standing committees sit. [Interjections.] We are making the chocolates which must be handed over.

Now it can be argued that if we did not carry this out the way the hon the Leader of the House proposes, the standing committees and Parliament would have to sit simultaneously. This was, however, not the original idea, as we understood it. The idea was that the standing committees would convene when Parliament was not sitting. Let us rather make the sensible decision of having this House adjourn until January so that the standing committees can sit.

So that you people can go home.

Yes, so that we can go home and do our work in our constituencies or does that hon member not have any work in his constituency? [Interjections.] It is precisely because the hon member for Parys did not do his work in his constituency that he nearly lost his seat.

He has no more voters!

We, however, have work to do in our constituencies.

Order! It is very difficult if one side of the House is making loud interjections while the other side of the House is making its support known just as loudly. I ask both sides to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

My standpoint is simply that we now move that Parliament adjourns until January, so that the standing committees can continue with their work in a calm, productive and meaningful way, and remain busy. The difficulty is, however, that the Government no longer knows what it is like to work in a calm, meaningful and methodical way, because everything is done in a slapdash way, in a hurry, in an ad hoc fashion, as we have just heard again in the case of the Group Areas Act. For this reason we shall oppose the motion of the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Chairman, we in the PFP also believe that this motion should not be supported.

We have a situation in this House where year after year we either have feast or famine; where we either have motions coming from the hon the Leader of the House that we must sit night after night, late into the night, trying to rush legislation through, which means that the legislation goes through without, I believe, proper and due time or consideration having been given to it; or, alternatively, we have what is happening here today, and that is that there is not enough work to keep this Parliament busy and therefore we have to have the day off on Thursday. This gives the voters of South Africa in my view a very clear message, namely that this Cabinet and this Government could not organise their way out of a paper bag, because this is striking proof of lack of organisation and lack of productivity to the nth degree.

Let me hasten to add that I do not blame the hon Whips of any party for this. I do not think it is the fault of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament; there are other things that I can blame him for. Neither do I think it is the fault of the hon the Chief Whip of the NP or of the Official Opposition. It is the fault of Ministers who do not have legislation ready at the right time as they should. It is no good trying to blame the departmental staff for this. A Minister is the head of his department. If an organisation is not performing, whether in the public or the private sector, one has to look for the problem at the top.

That brings me to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. A lot of the blame for the breakdown in our legislative programme lies with the tricameral system that he has created. The tricameral Parliament is an administrative monster and a practical nightmare. I am sure the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament will agree that the job he has trying to organise the debates involving the various Ministers among three Houses is an absolute nightmare.

We have three Houses and the President’s Council. The Ministers have to rush from House to House, and we therefore have to have more and more Ministers—we have them—and more and more Deputy Ministers—we have them too. We even have to have assistants to the Ministers. Yet, despite all our Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Ministerial Representatives, we still have the sort of breakdown in the legislative system that is evidenced here today.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has woven a very tangled web, and the purpose of this tangled web has been to deceive. He has gone through convoluted manoeuvres to give this tricameral Parliament the appearance of multiracial democracy, while at the same time keeping all power in the hands of the majority party in the House of Assembly. The duplication of Ministers, the multiplication of members of Parliament—as the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition said, there are now 308 members of Parliament—and the profusion of Government departments are all centres of expense for which the taxpayer is paying very heavily.

Now we are asked at the last minute not to sit tomorrow and I understand we are not going to sit next Tuesday. Why is this so?

I believe there are two reasons for it. Firstly, the legislation that should be ready is not ready. Let us for example look at the Finance Bills which traditionally come at the end of every session. Therefore, in a normal year these Bills would be ready towards the end of June which is the end of the normal session. They would then be discussed by hon members and piloted through the House. It is now the middle of September which is three months later than we would normally be in preparing these Bills, and one of the reasons for the delay is that the Finance Bills are not ready. In fact, as yet they do not even appear on the Order Paper.

The second reason why we have these delays is that there is a lack of available Ministers who can sit in on the debates in order for us to debate these matters at the proper time and in the proper place. With the number of Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers that we have who can handle legislation, can hon members wonder that I call this an administrative nightmare?

As the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition has said, we are now not going to sit on Thursday and yet we have only three committees that are sitting on that day. This will involve about 60 members of Parliament. The other 248 members will have a holiday on full pay at the expense of the taxpayer. [Interjections.] I believe that this is a criminal waste of the taxpayers’ money and we oppose the motion.

Mr Chairman, I crave the indulgence of the House. [Interjections.] I shall be supporting the motion, and the reason why I shall be supporting it is this:…

You want a holiday. [Interjections.]

On full pay! [Interjections.]

The reason is that I think we realise that the mechanisms of the tricameral system are not the same and do not operate quite as easily and quickly as those of the Westminster system of Parliament that we had before. [Interjections.] To me one of the most important aspects of the tricameral system is the standing committee system.

Hear, hear!

The standing committee is the one place where members of the three Houses are able to get together and to discuss issues of a common nature, to debate and argue them, and to endeavour to come up with a satisfactory final decision.

For that reason I support this motion, regrettable though the delay may be. While one realises that we are still experiencing problems in these early stages of the application of the tricameral system and that the system will have to be altered from time to time in order to improve its efficiency and to expedite its work, the basis on which the standing committee system works justifies the delay. Those hon members who have nothing to do on Thursday, and possibly next week, should be able to find the time to swot up information that they may need later. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall also support the motion… [Interjections]… even if only on the basis that there will be a meeting of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs which will, to a large extent, be representative of the leaders and senior members of all the parties in the various Houses of Parliament.

If more time were needed, and we could devise a plan for them to convene jointly for a political discussion, even though this were a discussion on a specific Bill which, in fact, affected the political future of our country, I would suggest that we set aside even more time for that discussion.

I think it is very necessary for the leaders of the various political parties to hold discussions with one another, an aspect for which there has obviously not been much opportunity to date. If they could have an opportunity to get to know one another, exchange ideas and get their bearings for the future, it would be a positive step, and I should like to support the motion.

Mr Chairman, I should sincerely like to thank the hon members for Randburg and Mooi River, and through them their caucuses too, for their support of this motion. [Interjections.]

Ask them who their leaders are.

Mr Chairman, I think that the hon member for Mooi River actually touched upon the crux of the matter when he correctly highlighted the role of the committee system in terms of the new Constitution.

The committees form an extension of Parliament itself. When committees sit, Parliament is doing its work. It has been argued that because only a limited number of committees will meet tomorrow, or intend to meet tomorrow, the rest of the parliamentarians will be inactive.

*I immediately want to tender an apology, because we should actually have given notice of this motion yesterday. That would have placed chairmen of committees in a better position to take timely note of the fact that there will be no sitting tomorrow afternoon.

Let me say at once that I shall formally give notice that next Tuesday afternoon—reference has already been made to that fact—we shall not be sitting; and also that it is quite probable that we shall not have a formal sitting of the House of Assembly next Wednesday afternoon either. At present there are 22 Bills before standing committees. They appear on pages 374 and 375 of the Order Paper. It is not necessary for only two or three committees to sit on such an occasion. All the other committees may proceed with their work, even if the relevant legislation is not finalised during this session.

This would enable hon members to save taxpayers’ money, because during the recess they would not specially have to fly down to attend committee meetings. They are already here and can therefore help to save a great deal of money—something we are all concerned about—by taking note of this and, where possible, convening tomorrow afternoon, next Tuesday and also next Wednesday when we are not sitting. They could therefore free themselves of their commitments and have more time available to do work in their constituencies during the recess. All of us would like to get down to doing work in our constituencies.

I really think, therefore, that it is unnecessary for us to disagree on this point. On occasion we have had in-depth discussions on why this is necessary. This has not, after all, been a normal year for us; this has been an election year.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the fact that we are three months beyond our normal time. If, however, he deducts July, when Parliament was in recess for the normal reasons, and if he deducts the more than two months of session time we lost during the election, he will agree that we have not yet reached the stage that we would normally have reached by the middle of June in a normal session. [Interjections.] We are, therefore, running according to schedule.

A concerted attack was launched against my benchmate, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

He is always late.

There are, however, six Bills before that standing committee at this point in time, viz Bills Nos 2, 3, 11,12, 13 and 16 as indicated in the Appendix to the Order Paper. It is not as if work has not been generated for that standing committee. No, Mr Chairman, I think that was an unfair attack.

*The hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition says that this is an indication of the failure of the new dispensation. [Interjections.] Many Bills have been piloted through, however, since Rev Hendrickse left the Cabinet. After all, it is not as if the system has come to a halt. During this week quite a few Bills were dealt with by standing committees.

Some Bills went through this morning.

It is therefore an argument without any foundation. The system does not require representation in the Cabinet. The question of the impact or effect of this is another debate which I do not want to conduct with hon members today, except to say that at the moment the system works relatively smoothly, despite the fact that Rev Hendrickse is not a member of the Cabinet. I therefore disagree with the factual basis of the hon member’s statement.

The hon member says that this was never how he understood the system would work, because the system was such that while Parliament was in session it conducted its business, whilst the standing committees sat during the recess. This year, however, we have had special circumstances to which I have referred.

Secondly we must adapt to the demands made on us by the new Constitution. I realise that hon members of the CP do not like the new Constitution, but it happens to be the Constitution now, and its requirements are such that we have to ensure that the committee system does come into its own. We are now faced with choices. Towards the end of a session there is, after all, traditionally a slight accumulation of work. It is not our fault that we have two opposition parties whose numbers are relatively limited. We can convene meetings of standing committees whilst the House of Assembly proceeds with its work.

And then those hon members cannot be here.

After all, they complain with justification that their ranks are being depleted by too great an extent. Consequently the element involved is one of accommodating the smaller parties by interrupting the business of the session for one, two or three days to afford standing committees an opportunity to catch up with their work. Instead of saying thank you, they waste the taxpayers’ money on this unnecessarily protracted debate on such a self-explanatory matter.

I think that we are acting fairly towards the opposition parties by adjourning for a single day tomorrow so that attention can be given to important business to which the hon member for Randburg referred. This presents hon members, including those serving on other standing committees, with an opportunity to give attention to urgent business which they are doing there. I think that by creating slightly new traditions which fit in with the new system, we are constructively and effectively utilising taxpayers’ money.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—99: Alant, T G; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hardingham, R W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hunter, J E L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, TAP; Lemmer, J J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, W C; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meyer, A T; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, AI; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Jordaan, A L; Ligthelm, C J; Maree, M D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

Noes—30: Beyers, J M; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronjé, P C; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Gastrow, P H P; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Langley, T; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Swart, RAF; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Sir, the Co-operatives Act provides for three kinds of co-operatives to be formed and incorporated, namely agricultural co-operatives, special farmers’ co-operatives and trading co-operatives. The field of trading of the first two kinds of co-operatives is limited by the Act to the agricultural industry whilst trading co-operatives may be formed to carry out any objective but still with the Minister’s approval of the statute.

The total turnover for all kinds of cooperatives amounted to R14 573 million for 1986. Agricultural and special farmers’ cooperatives accounted for 97% of this amount. It is therefore clear that the co-operative movement in the Republic is mainly agriculture orientated. The main objectives of the agriculture-orientated co-operatives are the primary handling and processing of agricultural produce and the supplying of farming requisites and services with a view to giving their members the highest possible profit on their produce and minimising their input costs.

To ensure that agricultural and special farmers’ co-operatives retain their agricultural image, the Act restricts their business objectives to the agricultural industry and their membership, with a few exceptions, to bona fide farmers. The shareholders of these co-operatives are therefore also their clients. Their welfare and success are consequently closely related to the welfare and success of the agricultural industry of the Republic. As a result of various factors such as the prolonged drought in various parts of the Republic, inflation and the slump in the economic cycle, the financial position of farmers in particular and the farming industry as a whole has deteriorated drastically over the past few years. The cost of farming requisites and services, for instance, rose by 124,3% from 1980 to 1986 whilst producer prices showed an increase of only 90,2% for the same period. The drought also caused a dramatic decrease in the turnover of farmers in drought-stricken areas. Farmers therefore became increasingly dependent on co-operatives for their production input costs. This is reflected in the fact that members’ debts at co-operatives increased from R867,2 million in 1980 to R3 156,2 million during 1986.

In view of the fact that agricultural and special farmers’ co-operatives are restricted to the agricultural industry, it stands to reason that they have to obtain their financing from their members and therefore from the agricultural sector. As a result of the low profitability of agriculture and the weakening financial position of farmers, together with the fact that co-operatives are simultaneously owners and clients and that a conflict of interests would arise if both should aim at maximum profits, co-operatives were unable to build up sufficient funds of their own to meet the increasing need for capital funds. During the 1980-86 financial years the investment of these co-operatives in all assets rose by 164% from R3 480,6 million to R9 197,1 million, whilst their members’ contribution toward these costs rose by only 138% from R1 097 million to R2 609,9 million over the same period. Since agricultural and special farmers’ co-operatives, as a source of investment, are not available or sufficiently attractive to persons not carrying on farming, they find it increasingly difficult to obtain funds to carry out their objects and meet their obligations.

The continued existence of agriculture and special farmers’ co-operatives is not only vital to the agricultural industry but also to the Republic as a whole. All possible means have therefore to be applied to ensure their survival. Apart from the financial assistance already channelled to some co-operatives, steps have to be taken to ensure that they conduct their business according to co-operative practices and that they appropriate the assistance granted to them for the purpose for which it is intended. To this end the Land Bank has already taken the necessary steps to control the appropriation of State-guaranteed loans to various co-operatives. The Bill now also provides for stricter control over the business of co-operatives by authorising the Registrar of Co-operatives to attend meetings of the boards of directors as well as general and special meetings of co-operatives. He may also take part in the proceedings of these meetings to advise co-operatives on the appropriation of funds and the conducting of their business in general. The liability of directors and officers of co-operatives is also tightened to ensure better management of co-operatives.

Practical considerations have shown that co-operatives should also be put in a position to reach compromises and arrangements as is the case with companies. The provision made in the Bill in this regard is similarly aimed at the financial survival of co-operatives. The Act does not provide for co-operatives to be placed under judicial management. Co-operatives finding themselves in financial difficulties therefore have no option but to be liquidated. As has been pointed out, such a step would not be in the interest of a co-operative’s members, nor, in the case of an agricultural or special farmers’ cooperative, in the interest of the agricultural industry in particular and the Republic as a whole. Provision is therefore made in the Bill for co-operatives to be placed under judicial management to determine whether a co-operative faced with possible liquidation or which, for any other reason, is no longer a successful concern can be turned into a financially sound and progressive business.

Mr Chairman, as I have already pointed out, the Bill provides mainly for measures aimed at the survival of co-operatives to ensure a better agricultural industry for the benefit of all the people of the Republic. Besides provisions relating to the matters I have referred to above, the Bill is further aimed at the clarification of particular provisions of the Act such as membership of agricultural and special farmers’ co-operatives by trusts and State-owned corporations; the registration of fixed and movable property of co-operatives involved in compromises, arrangements and amalgamations; and claims by members of co-operatives under liquidation. Particular provisions of the Act that pose certain administrative and legal problems in practice are also amended to eliminate those problems. The provisions of the Bill dealing with these amendments are explained comprehensively in the Memorandum on the Objects of the Bill published together with the Bill.

All the institutions consulted when the Bill was prepared supported the principles contained in it. I wish to express my thanks to organised trade and industry in particular for their support of the Bill.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the Bill under discussion, as amended in the standing committee. As worded in its original form, embodying the original clause 6, the CP did not see its way clear to supporting the measure. As the Bill is worded at present, it makes provision for a whole series of measures aimed at improving the Co-operatives Act.

The truth of the matter is that the cooperative movement, both here in South Africa and in Europe, has a long history. Initially the history of co-operatives was the story of one failure after another. And the truth is that the first co-operatives that were established were actually consumer co-operatives. A great deal was learned as one failure followed upon another, particularly in Switzerland, where a pattern was developed by which co-operatives and the co-operative movement could differ from companies. Co-operatives only began to function successfully, as far as voting was concerned, when there was a deviation from the principle of a person’s vote being proportional to his shareholding, and each member of a co-operative had one vote, exercised democratically, regardless of the shareholding of that person.

A second important deviation that was introduced, one which contributed to the success of the co-operative movement, involved the fact that the distribution of bonuses was no longer linked to a person’s shareholding, but was related to the turnover and volume of business a member did with the co-operative. In South Africa it is also true that the boundaries and the membership of the respective co-operatives established here are such that the joint interests of a group of producers are actually served by a specific co-operative. We therefore have a tobacco co-operative for the tobacco farmers, a dairy co-operative for the dairy farmers, the BKB for the wool farmers, etc. The common interests of producers therefore play a very important role.

It is also true that in South Africa the co-operatives are an important mainstay in the economy of the country, with a turnover of R14,5 billion. In agriculture co-operatives are also a mainstay of formidable proportions. As in other parts of the world it is also true that 97% of the turnover of the cooperatives is that of agricultural co-operatives and special farming co-operatives, whilst only 3% of the turnover is that of consumer co-operatives.

What is also true is that the debt of members—the members’ debts to the cooperatives—has dramatically increased. From 1980 to 1986 it increased from R867 million to more than R3 billion. That is an increase of 364% within a period of six years. It is also true to say that owing to the increased input costs, increased interest and the droughts, the financial position of the co-operatives has declined in conjunction with that of the farmers.

In this Bill provision is also made for a co-operative to be placed under judicial management, because in the light of the present situation a co-operative can only be liquidated and cannot be placed under judicial management.

On the one hand the fact that a co-operative can now be placed under judicial management, allowing one to examine its viability and the possibility of getting it on its feet once more, is an improvement. It is also, however, a sign of the plight in which agriculture in South Africa finds itself.

In this Bill provision is also made for the fact that as far as insurance is concerned, cooperatives can now act as intermediaries between their members and insurance organisations.

In this Bill provision is made for the orderly marketing, in the RSA, of products produced in the self-governing or national states. In this Bill provision is also made for agricultural co-operatives in South Africa to make their expertise and experience available to the self-governing and independent states with a view to helping those people organise themselves on a co-operative basis. In this connection let me say that in South Africa—I do not think there is a single farmer who would disagree with that—the co-operatives have played an important role in getting agriculture on its feet in this country. I also think it is very important that in the self-governing and the independent states the co-operative movement can play a tremendous role in organising the collective bargaining power of the agricultural industry and the farmers there—the one million farmers living in the self-governing and independent states—also helping agriculture in those areas to get off the ground.

That is why the CP was not in favour of provision being made for organisations within the Black states to become members of a co-operative here. I want to say today that the co-operative movement is a dynamic force, a bulwark for the White farmers in South Africa. It can also become such a force for the Black farmers in South Africa, but I wish to state, by way of a cautionary word, that we should keep people’s interests compartmentalised. We must not start combining them. One of the most dangerous steps that could be taken in South Africa would be for us to start involving the farmers of other states in the co-operatives of a state beyond their borders.

The CP is delighted that that provision has fallen away and we therefore support this Bill. We also ask the Government not to meddle with the co-operatives in this field. This would endanger the future of the co-operative movement, which is a mainstay for us at present, and South African agriculture cannot afford that.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Lichtenburg very sincerely for his support of this Bill. Let me tell him that it is nice for us, as farmers, to be able to talk to one another so calmly and dispassionately.

In regard to a few matters he mentioned, I merely want to tell him—this will probably serve to inform certain other gentlemen in this House—that it seems to me as if there is only one principle applicable throughout the world, one involving the slow movement of a pendulum from one extreme to another. The hon member gave a fine description of the development that took place in Switzerland, development which did in fact give rise to a democratic vote in co-operatives, in contrast to a vote based on a member’s shareholding, there basically being a system of one man, one vote, as one would choose to have in a democratic process of government.

Today, as a result of the experience we have gained in the past, we have moved halfway back to having weighted votes, the Cooperatives Act making provision for one person being able to cast a maximum of five votes. After what we have seen happening in the field, co-operatives have given consideration to having—we have now introduced the system which, but for two dissenting votes, was approved by our members at members’ meetings—a weighted vote because we found that those who had no interest in the co-operative, but who still had a vote, were frequently being marshalled into acting contrary to the interests of the cooperative.

Another interesting aspect is that of the distribution of bonuses by co-operatives. It is a sound principle and I endorse it. The distribution of bonuses, based on turnover and not shareholding, is of course one of the underlying reasons why a co-operative does not build up funds. This creates a major problem as far as we are concerned.

It is a pity the hon the Minister of Finance is not here. We as farmers have a fundamental problem in that the co-operatives compel us to invest money with them in the form of revolving funds, levy funds and members’ interest funds. We must in that way invest in storage and handling facilities which, in actual fact, form part of our production process. We now find that when our tax is calculated, interest cannot be set off against our income and losses. I am convinced that this is a completely wrong approach because the funds create essential services.

Today I am very glad about another aspect of this Bill. The hon member for Lichtenburg said that he would not like to see persons or bodies from Black areas becoming members of our co-operatives. He said nothing, however, about Black people inside South Africa becoming members of already existing cooperatives. Until very recently the majority of co-operatives still had clauses in their charters of foundation stipulating that only White farmers could be members. The hon member did not touch upon that point. I am also very grateful that he agrees with the principle that we make our expertise available to the Black areas so that they can also derive some benefit from it. I advocated this at a biennial co-operative agricultural congress in 1974, and I wish hon members could have seen the negative reaction my comments elicited on that day. Now a CP front-bencher is also saying that we should help those people get co-operatives off the ground in their own areas.

This Bill basically covers three fields. Firstly it deals with the responsibility of the director and officials of the co-operative. Secondly it deals with the position of the registrar of a co-operative. Thirdly it deals with compromises, arrangements, amalgamations and the judicial management of co-operatives. I find it tragic that today we have to deal with legislation that indicates that the problems in the co-operatives are such that clear guidelines have to be laid down for judicial management and for the responsibilities of directors and the registrar.

As far as the position of the directors and officials is concerned, I am glad that their responsibilities are now being placed on the same footing as those of the directors and officials of companies. I think that is essential. It is high time—and has been for a long time now—that the point of departure of a director of a co-operative was the welfare of the co-operative and not that of making popular decisions.

I opposed the clause on the status of the registrar at the meeting of the Free State fraternity of co-operatives. It will gladden the hon the Minister’s heart to know, however, that I was the only one who voiced any opposition and voted against it. However, I fully accept that decision. If agriculture wants that to be the position of the registrar, I accept it. I should merely like to state, however, why I do not agree. As we have seen, the directors of co-operatives now have new responsibilities and obligations which they did not previously have. Their responsibilities have been brought into line with those of company directors.

The registrar’s position in relation to the co-operative’s status has also changed completely in terms of section 112 and subsequent sections. In comparison with the obligations of the Registrar of Companies, he has been given infinitely more powers and duties. For the first time he has the power to interfere, without any restriction, in the day-to-day functions of the co-operatives. That is a fact.

He may request agendas and minutes, he may participate in meetings and can even require his participation to be recorded in the minutes. The only thing he cannot do is vote. He may also request a copy of the minutes. The Registrar of Companies, on the other hand, does not have these powers. The Registrar of Co-operatives also has the power to appoint or dismiss a judicial manager, as he deems fit. These powers are unique; in the Companies Act there is no section that makes provision for this. This registrar even has the power to determine the salary of the judicial manager.

When the co-operatives experience financial problems, in terms of the Land Bank Act the Land Bank can take a hand in the daily functions of the co-operatives. The Land Bank can attend board meetings, request copies of the agendas and minutes and act prescriptively. The Land Bank already has these powers and is, in effect, the channel through which State funds flow to the cooperatives, and now we are also granting the registrar these additional powers and rights. I want to reiterate that that is what the SA Agricultural Union requested and what it is consequently getting.

Lastly, in regard to control, I merely want to ask the hon the Minister whether he will not promulgate an ordinance to obviate the following problem. In the recent past a relatively negative auditor’s report appeared in regard to the statements of a co-operative. The co-operative is compelled by law to attach the auditor’s report to the statements it must leave for its members’ inspection at its depots. That co-operative, however, issued an abridged statement to each member, excluding the auditor’s report. In other words, the members are under the impression that the report issued to them is a comprehensive report. But what the auditors said, which was of a fairly negative nature, was not included.

I think it should be stipulated that any abridged statement issued by a co-operative should be accompanied by the auditor’s report. It is a short report, and it is essential, for anyone receiving the report, to know that he is dealing with facts and with the situation as it is in practice.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the PFP I should like to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, after the serious note on which the sitting started today, I want to tell a story which I heard in my constituency, which took place in the old days before co-operatives existed. At that time Smithfield’s “dorpswagter” was a feared man whose primary job it was, when necessary, to herd cows to the nearest bull, frequently on neighbouring farms. While he was herding a cow along one day, he noticed a young bull on one of the plots, and because he reasoned that it would save him a great deal of time and trouble, he herded the cow onto that plot. Nature took its course, and just when hopes and expectations were at their highest, the worst happened: The young bull sank to his knees and started suckling the cow. [Interjections.] Agriculture without virile, streamlined, modern, effective cooperatives is like a herd of cows without a capable bull.

For that reason we on this side welcome this amending Bill. It will contribute a great deal towards making a sound co-operative movement, without which we cannot manage, more prepared.

I want to refer briefly to a few of the clauses which drew my attention. We have come a long way in this country as regards orderly marketing. For that reason we can also very fruitfully use our expertise and services in uplifting our independent and national states. It is my considered opinion that we must give serious consideration to making membership of State controlled co-operatives available to them, so that we can play a big part. This is, after all, in line with the general policy of our country as regards our national states, in terms of which we cannot subdivide our economy.

As regards clause 4 (b) those of us who have served on agricultural credit committees for many years have learnt from experience that many of our problems in agriculture today arose because of incorrect wills. This is particularly the case where a farmer has one farm and a number of children. That is why it is becoming increasingly popular nowadays—this is also a good solution—to bequeath such farms to trusts, so that these children can go out and work and control this farm as trustees. For that reason it is a good thing and beneficial for these trustees to be able to acquire membership of co-operatives, because in this way they also retain their interest in and ties with agriculture.

The majority of our directors and officials do excellent work, but there are some of them who, like the little bull I mentioned, frequently disappoint us. For that reason it is also a good thing that in terms of clauses 7 and 8, a reasonable degree of control can be exercised, and that the registrar has the right to attend meetings occasionally on a regular or an ad hoc basis and to participate in them.

However, in my opinion there is one important proviso, namely that these people must be well trained and capable and that they must lead and not mislead. It is also a good thing that the shortcomings in respect of the responsibility of directors and officials have been ironed out in these amendments.

Clauses 14 to 19 deal with agricultural co-operatives which are in financial difficulties. We on this side of the House realise today that the problems of co-operatives arise from the problems of their members and for that reason it is in the interests of every farmer for co-operatives to be placed on a sounder footing. We therefore welcome the fact that the procedure in this respect has also been tightened up.

The rest of my arguments have already been covered by other hon members and for that reason I support this amending Bill in its entirety.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Smithfield. I think he made a positive and practical contribution.

I shall be supporting this Bill. It is a fairly comprehensive amending Bill and obviously it has been necessitated by circumstances which have developed over recent years, mainly as a result of the deterioration in the agricultural economy. This deterioration has been caused by financial problems of farmers and the members of certain co-ops which now have filtered through to the co-operative movement.

I am not going to extol the virtues of the co-operative movement in its entirety, but there are certain comments that I wish to make in regard to this legislation in the time which is available to me in the course of this debate. I wish to analyse specifically the relationship between some of the co-operatives and their members. It is no secret—this can justifiably be claimed—that some of the co-operatives have run their affairs with responsibility and, metaphorically speaking, to the letter of the law. They have also maintained a good relationship with their members in that they have not looked upon their members as being accountable to the co-operatives, but they, the co-operatives, have realised that the principle function of any co-operative is that it be accountable to its members. These are the co-operatives which, generally speaking, are in a sound financial position at the present time.

It is quite clear, however, that other cooperatives have been guilty of mismanagement. These co-operatives have alienated their members and have not observed the principles of what a true co-operative should be. Furthermore, they have indulged in trading practices which have not necessarily been in the best interests of members or of the co-operatives themselves. These actions have now been revealed in the financial position of some of these co-operatives.

I wish to make it quite clear that I do not claim that all co-operatives fall into this category, and it would be wrong to assume that all co-operatives that have run into financial difficulties are necessarily cast in this mould. Obviously, one is only too aware of the fact that the drought and the general escalation in input costs have also had a detrimental effect on the performance of some co-operatives.

It is on the strength of this question of the irresponsibility of certain co-operatives—if I may use that term—that I am fully supportive of clause 7 which seeks to widen the powers of the registrar. I am firmly convinced that it is necessary for the registrar to conduct a closer surveillance of the affairs of many co-operatives, and I would appeal to the hon the Minister to see to it that these powers are expanded even further, should it become necessary.

What we have to realise is that there is a trend towards the privatisation of some State services that affect agriculture. It is more than likely that those service functions will fall into the lap of the co-operatives; in other words, co-operatives will be called upon to fill the gap that will be created by the withdrawal of the State from the rendering of certain services. Therefore it is essential that provision be made to accommodate this trend.

In returning to the Bill itself I must point out that it has been fully dealt with by previous speakers. However, I wish to record that I welcome the provision contained in clause 2 of the Bill which seeks to remove certain existing anomalies in regard to co-operative agency involvement in the insurance business. To me it is logical too that provision be made to facilitate the handling of products from self-governing states, as contained in clause 4. Here again I should just like to refer to a point made by the hon member for Lichtenburg. As I see it, it is imperative that self-governing states should be encouraged to market their products legally through the co-operative systems of this country, rather than to try to dispose of products through the back door in what may almost verge upon an illegal form of marketing.

I also welcome the provisions of clause 8 in regard to the liabilities of officers and directors of co-operatives. I need not duplicate the points I have already made, but my concern in regard to certain irresponsible actions of some of the co-operatives is now accommodated.

Generally speaking, therefore, I think this is a good Bill in that it addresses many of the existing problems in the co-operative movement.

One must realise too that the recovery of agriculture in this country is going to depend largely on the performance of co-operatives. At the same time I feel that the co-operative movement as a whole would benefit if there was greater competition among co-operatives and if more encouragement was given to the formation of smaller co-operatives throughout the country.

With these words I support the provisions of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to express my thanks to hon members for their support of what I consider to be a very important amendment of the Co-operatives Act.

I think the few provisions to which reference was made are incorporating additional responsibility into the co-operative system as far as the responsibility of directors is concerned.

Another very important provision is the extension of the registrar’s powers. The hon member for Mooi River, the hon member for Heilbron and, I think, the hon member for Lichtenburg all referred to this. Let me admit at once that in my opinion the office of the Registrar of Co-operatives in my department has not been strengthened and extended sufficiently. I think that in future we shall have to consider the position of the Registrar of Co-operatives so that he can fulfil his obligations in terms of these provisions.

It is becoming more and more important—the hon member for Lichtenburg referred to this—to take cognisance of the fact that the co-operative system in South Africa has not stagnated; on the contrary, it has developed and adjusted to the specific circumstances of South African agriculture. What has happened in South African agriculture recently has made the position of the registrar more and more essential.

We know the old claim that the Marketing Act and the Co-operatives Act are two Acts which go hand in hand in the whole system of orderly marketing. That is why it is necessary, as marketing becomes more sophisticated and we develop marketing relations with neighbouring states, to provide constant supervision and advice in the liaison mechanism, because a marketing board is a statutory body, or, to use the new word, a parastatal body.

Co-operatives are an integral part of the private sector, however, and the private sector and statutory bodies have to cooperate and liaise closely. That is why this amendment is so essential, because the liaison between orderly marketing and the development of the co-operative system in the neighbouring states has become necessary to an increasing extent. In some of our neighbouring states, agriculture is beginning to develop in a market-oriented way. They no longer have a subsistence marketing system. In fact, we have marketing agreements with these national states to market their grain, meat and other agricultural products; otherwise we shall have a situation in Southern Africa in which marketing activities are fragmented. For that reason it is essential that we include them in the South African marketing system. We must try to include them in this way, especially because the co-operative movement is an agent for the marketing of many of these different commodities.

There is a second reason why we should pay attention to the responsibility of the management of co-operatives as far as directors are concerned and also as far as the extension of the registrar’s powers are concerned. Agricultural co-operatives, especially the large ones, have become part of the financing system in agriculture. We have had the six- and the 10-year schemes. It is not merely a question of the Land Bank’s having to monitor this, because those particular schemes have a Government guarantee of R800 million. What is more, interest subsidies are involved, and it is becoming more and more essential for not only the Land Bank, but also the registrar to monitor these various financing schemes from time to time. That is why it is becoming so important for them to be open to inspection by the Department of Agriculture and its Minister, who has to account to the Treasury, so that at least, if necessary, we can have a discussion about the credit policy of a particular co-operative, because the co-operatives have become a kind of Government agent with the purpose of assisting agriculture in this respect.

I think it is essential to say here today, however, that I am afraid the Government guarantee of R800 million creates the impression that amounts set aside out of profits by co-operatives in respect of the writing off of bad debts are no longer necessary, because the Government pays for this in any case. That R800 million is not budgeted for, and that is why it is becoming essential not only to take a look at the financial management, but also at these schemes which involve a great risk for the taxpayer and the Government. We do not want to wield the big stick, but I think it is becoming essential for the registrar to be able to give advice and also, if necessary, to advise the Minister in this connection.

I have a third reason for thinking that the Ministry of Agriculture and the co-operative movement should move closer to one another. During the past few years the extension service to agriculture and to individual farmers, especially in the summer grain regions where we are experiencing some of the biggest economic agricultural problems today, has developed to such an extent that co-operatives fulfil this function. Agricultural extension will have to play a more and more important part in future.

There will have to be closer liaison between the Government and the co-operatives, especially since we are involved in a soil conversion scheme and more diversified agricultural activities in this process. The link is not only the heads of departments, but also the registrar in particular, who has the power to sit in where extension policy can be determined.

I think we are moving in a direction in which co-operatives will have to take over more and more of the Government’s functions, and this is part of the Government’s policy of privatisation. I therefore think this amendment is exceptionally important.

I do not want to make too much reference to hon member’s respective speeches. I think I must merely avail myself of the opportunity to tell hon members that I agree that they have had problems with certain aspects, inter alia the provision that Blacks from the national states can become members of co-operatives. I do not think we are quite ready to do that yet. I agree with the hon member, however, that it is necessary for development corporations to be able to become members of co-operatives, so that the liaison I spoke about can be effected in this way. This is a matter that will have to be considered in future.

The hon member for Heilbron says he is not very happy.

I do agree, however, Sir!

Oh, the hon member does agree. He made certain objections, however, and I accept that.

The hon member for Smithfield also mentioned that the co-operative system must make up part of an orderly marketing system. He drew a comparison, and said it was like a dairy which had no bull. I quite agree with him.

I thank hon members for their support of these very important amendments to the Co-operatives Act.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

During 1975, the South African Law Commission incorporated the revision of the law of succession into its programme. Intestate succession formed part of this project. In the light of the fact that the investigation into the law of succession is a very comprehensive investigation and may take years to complete, the commission decided to submit an interim report on the law of intestate succession. This report was tabled in Parliament on 28 May 1985 and the Bill gives effect to the recommendations contained therein.

The rules of intestate succession in South Africa are at present regulated by various pieces of legislation. The Bill makes provision for the consolidation of those provisions, namely the Political Ordinance of 1580, the Interpretation of 1594, the Octrooi of 1661 and the Succession Act, No 13 of 1934. I might just point out that this dates back to a period in this country when the majority of hon members present were either tiny toddlers or perhaps were just a twinkle in their fathers’ eye.

History is therefore being made, since legislation which has been in force for more than three centuries is now being consolidated. The commission accepted the premise that the rules of intestate succession should be clear and easy to apply. Although the ideal is that rules should always operate fairly, rules should not be made for unusual cases if such rules are complicated or difficult to apply.

The way in which testators dispose of their estates in their wills gave the commission an indication as to what the community regards as equitable rules for succession.

The clauses, in short, contain the following: At present the surviving spouse in the first instance competes with descendants of the deceased for the inheritance. If the deceased does not leave any descendants, but he does leave a parent, brother or sister, all the common law heirs compete with the surviving spouse. A result hereof may be that family members who have never had any contact with the deceased, inherit in competition with the surviving spouse, which clearly may have unfair implications for the surviving spouse. In clause 1 (1) (a) it is consequently envisaged that provision be made for the surviving spouse to inherit the estate where there are no surviving descendants of the deceased. This will bring about a more just result.

The provisions of clause 1 (1) (b) and 1 (4) (a) are a re-enactment of the common law position as contained in section 20 of the Political Ordinance of 1580. Where the deceased is not survived by a spouse the descendants of the deceased will inherit the estate per stirpes ad infinitum.

As a result of the devaluation of the monetary unit, the minimum share of R50 000, which the surviving spouse receives at present, has become totally inadequate. This necessitates an adjustment. Since amending legislation to effect adjustments is a long and costly process, it is proposed in clause 1 (1) (c) (i) that this amount henceforth be fixed by notice in the Gazette. As soon as this Bill appears on the Statute Book, I shall consider what amount will be appropriate.

Assets which a surviving spouse who is married in community of property receives in terms of the matrimonial property law are at present deducted from the minimum share in terms of the Succession Act, 1934, where he or she inherits in competition with descendants. This is considered to be undesirable as such assets have no connection with succession. It is consequently proposed in clause 1 (1) (c) that such assets not be deducted from the minimum share.

Where the deceased is not survived by a spouse or descendant but by both his parents, clause 1 (1) (d) (i) re-enacts the common law position in terms of which each of his parents inherits a half share of the estate.

Where the deceased, however, is only survived by one of his parents and descendants of the deceased parent, the surviving parent inherits half the estate at present. The other half is inherited by competent heirs of the deceased parent, related to the deceased within the fourth degree. If there are no such descendants, the surviving parent will then inherit the estate. Clause 1 (1) (d) (ii) re-enacts this position but proposes to do away with the prohibition of inheritance by relatives related further than the fourth degree. The result, then, is that even surviving great-great grandchildren of the deceased’s predeceased parent qualify for inheritance. Whether this is going to result in some really good legislation in the country, is still an open question. I imagine that we may experience some very interesting court cases on this issue.

If there is no surviving spouse, descendant or parent, and there are descendants of both parents, the provisions of clause 1 (1) (e) will have the effect that the estate is divided into two halves and the descendants who are related to the deceased through his or her predeceased father or predeceased mother, respectively, will inherit said halves. The clause also amends the common law position in that a prohibition on inheritance by descendants in the second parentela who are related to the deceased further than the fourth degree, is being done away with.

If there is no surviving spouse, descendant or parent and there are descendants of only one predeceased parent, the provisions of clause 1 (1) (e) (ii) will have the effect that the descendants of the predeceased parent inherit the entire intestate estate. The half of the estate of the deceased parent who has no descendants, is at present inherited by his ancestors or their descendants.

Where the deceased is not survived by a spouse, a descendant, a parent or a descendant of a parent, and all the grandparents on a particular side are still alive, each inherits at present a half of the said side’s half, ie a quarter of the estate. If only one of the grandparents on a particular side is still alive, that grandparent, and everyone who is related to the deceased through him or her only, are excluded from intestate inheritance. This half then also goes to the descendant of the deceased grandparent by way of representation to relatives of the fourth or nearer degree, ie uncles, aunts and their children. In order to simplify this position and to allow close relatives to inherit, clause 1 (1) (f) envisages that relatives of the deceased who are related to him in the nearest degree inherit the estate in equal portions. Relatives who are more closely related to the deceased, although in a further parentela, may consequently exclude relatives in an earlier parentela.

At present the position is that an illegitimate child is incompetent to inherit intestate from his father and his relatives, and vice versa. The South African Law Commission, in its report on the legal position of illegitimate children, held the view that the position of the illegitimate child must, as far as possible, be brought into line with that of the legitimate child. Clause 1 (2) gives effect to this recommendation by providing that illegitimacy shall not affect the competence of one relative to inherit the intestate estate of another relative.

In terms of clause 1 (4) (e) an adopted child, for the purposes of the rules of intestate succession, is deemed to be a descendant of his adoptive parents and not a descendant of his natural parents. An adopted child, therefore, will henceforth be able to inherit intestate, not from his natural parents and their relatives, but from his adoptive parents and their relatives. This provision is in accordance with the existing legislation on the consequences of adoption and confirms the principle that an adopted child, to all intents and purposes in law, is deemed to be the child of the adoptive parents.

Mr Chairman, if this Bill does nothing else, it will do away with the notion that if a person dies intestate, the State takes everything.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, I pledge my support to this Bill on behalf of the CP. In actual fact it is a consolidation of various Acts which preceded it; one can actually call it a codification of our law of intestate succession.

The first aspect addressed here is the matter of the intestate share of the estate—the amount which the surviving spouse will inherit. At this stage it is an amount of R50 000, but in terms of this Bill the hon the Minister is now being given the opportunity to adjust this by way of a notice in the Gazette, so that it can keep pace with inflation.

Normally we are not in favour of adjustments being made by way of such notices, but we realise that, in view of the rising inflation rate, the alternative would be to make an adjustment of this kind virtually every year. This amount of R50 000 was determined in 1982. In 1984, as a result of inflation, the equivalent amount was R66 000, and by now it has probably reached R100 000. If the Minister had to submit legislation every time the amount had to be increased, this would cause too much bother. However, we hope that the inflation rate will level off to such an extent that in future it will not be necessary to adjust this amount so frequently. Then we can reconsider this section.

It is also possible that there are people who are wondering whether this child’s portion—the R50 000 or R100 000, or whatever the amount is which the Minister decides on—will not prejudice the legal children who must also inherit from the intestate estate. However, an estate remains responsible for the maintenance of the children. If it became apparent that the children are being prejudiced, for example as a result of a determination of R100 000, a claim may be instituted against the estate before the distribution takes place. In this way the problem can be obviated.

On the other hand, if the mother for example were to inherit, she remains responsible for supporting the children. She will therefore use that money to support them in any case. However, a problem can arise when one is dealing with a step-parent who takes the money and possibly does not support the children in instituting a claim against the estate. No matter what shortcomings there may be, we must remember that the deceased was entitled to make a will, and if he was dissatisfied with the inheritance as it would take place ab intestato, he was entitled to make a will to prevent this.

In this legislation we are taking leave—I think we need someone like the hon member for Mossel Bay to read out the Dutch in the Schedule correctly—of The Political Ordinance—and I shall rather not give the Dutch description of it—of 1 April 1580, from the Groot Placaet-Boek, Part 1; the Interpretation of 13 May 1594, from the Groot Placaet-Boek, also Part 1; and the Octrooi of 10 January 1661, also from the Groot Placaet-Boek, Part 2.

The said Octrooi is rather interesting if one considers the title, subject or heading under which it appeared:

As I have said, there are other hon members here who are able to speak Dutch better than I can. Nevertheless, we see here that it was an interpretation to arrange the law of succession on journeys from the East Indies back to Holland, and this was incorporated into our law of succession.

I am sure we take our leave of this old Dutch connection with greater reluctance than we took our leave of Mr Klaas de Jonge. [Interjections.]

Anyone who has studied the law of succession at some or other stage has taken cognisance of this old Ordinance and Placaete and, as I have said, it is with a measure of reluctance that we take our leave of them.

It is rather strange that so few problems were experienced with the interpretation of the intestate law of succession if one takes into consideration that it was not codified in all respects as is now being done. One is actually afraid that we may experience interpretation problems now that we are going to have an Act to regulate all this. However, it does not look as if this will be the case because this is merely a codification of the existing concepts which have been built up over the years and with which we have had no interpretation problems.

It is therefore a privilege for those of us on this side of the House to support this Bill, and we are convinced that to a great extent it is a summary and a codification of the existing law, with minor differences, which will lead to greater legal certainty in this regard.

Mr Chairman, as far as we on these benches are concerned, this Bill should not delay the House unduly. It has good credentials. It is the product of the labours of the SA Law Commission and it passed with acclaim through the Standing Committee on Justice, without receiving any dissenting vote.

There are, however, just a few points that I would like to make in passing about this Bill. Firstly, a situation involving intestate succession is not a situation which is forced upon any person, and certainly not upon any person fortunate enough to be able to bequeath, upon his death, material assets. A testator, by making a simple but competent will, can upon his demise regulate his affairs and dispose of his assets in his own discretion, and thus avoid the estate being the subject of rigid legal rules of succession, some of which go back several centuries. It is in the gift of the testator to ensure that those items which cannot be taken with him are at least devolved to those left behind who mean the most to him.

Humans are fallible, however, Mr Chairman, and for many the very drafting of a will is an admission that death is to come—and perhaps sooner than one thinks. Once one has made a will, one has finally jettisoned that fairy tale that life is for ever, and many baulk at taking such a step.

Intestate deaths occur for many reasons. People living in a fantasy world of immortality, people who think that accidents will never happen to them, financial inability to pay for the documentation and the advice, and very often just basic ignorance—all these, and also other factors, play a role. No matter, however, what the reason, the end result is always that people other than the deceased are affected—living people, a wife, a child perhaps, parents, relatives, loved ones. These people are sometimes affected in a manner which is not uniformly fair, for rules are rules and they do not take into account the personal circumstances of a family, neither do they recognise relationships which fall outside the ambit of the norms set by these rules. And it is cold comfort to tell a disadvantaged yet deserving survivor or survivors that the deceased had available to him at the time the right to make a will.

Where then, Sir, does this leave the legislator? All that we the legislators can do is to set rules for succession, rules which, to the best of our ability, are simple, understandable and at least relatively orderly to execute and also as fair as we can make them—rules which will hopefully stand the test of time.

Now, Sir, I believe this Bill represents an attempt to do just that. I do not wish today to repeat the explanation already given by the hon the Minister as to the specific improvements hereby brought about. Generally, however, the position of a surviving spouse is strengthened, particularly where there are no surviving descendants. In other cases the surviving wife will now receive a child’s share or an amount to be fixed from time to time by the Minister. This replaces the minimum amount of R50 000, which, with inflation, has certainly become inadequate. I would value the hon the Minister this afternoon giving us the benefit of his thinking on this issue, and perhaps telling us what he has in mind in bringing greater equity to bear on this situation once he has this power granted to him.

Finally, Mr Chairman, two further and most welcome improvements involve the strengthening of the position of extra-marital children and adopted children. These new provisions are both enlightened and compassionate, and deserve our support. In the sum therefore, Mr Chairman, I commend this Bill to the House and support its passage.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon members for Bethal and Sandton for their support of this Bill on behalf of their respective parties. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister sketched the background which gave rise to this legislation. Therefore in my argument in support of this measure I wish to deal only with the most important and fundamental aspects.

It is most important to emphasise once again, as the hon member for Sandton has already done, that this Bill derives from and is a direct result of the recommendations of the report issued by the SA Law Commission, which has been tabled in this House.

I should like to begin by saying that every citizen of this country has the inherent right to provide by testamentary disposition how his or her estate will be disposed of after the date of death. It is true, however—this has also been mentioned—that in every modern community there are and will always be people who do not make use of this right to make a last will or who have an invalid testament. In such a case the State has to make rules and regulations by way of legislation with a view to intestate succession in order to ensure not only that the estate of such a deceased person can be disposed of, but also that there is a fair and just dispensation for the survivors.

At present—this has been mentioned—in terms of the law of intestate succession the surviving spouse inherits a child’s share or R50 000, whichever amount is the greater. It is interesting to note that in 1934 this amount was set at R1 200, in 1962 it was increased to R10 000, and in 1982 it was set at the current level of R50 000. The SA Law Commission examined this matter in depth. In its report on page 12 it reached the following very important conclusion:

The report then goes on and on page 13 a very important new principle is outlined, and again I quote from the commission’s report:

Accordingly the commission went on to propose that the Minister of Justice be authorised to stipulate the minimum amount by way of notice in the Gazette. This proposal has accordingly been incorporated in clause 1 (1) (c) (i) of the Bill.

An outstanding characteristic of this legislation is that it addresses the realities which could arise in any community or society. In addition the Bill revises and consolidates all previous rules of intestate succession.

It is accordingly appropriate that in making its recommendations the commission adopted the following points of departure, and again I quote from the report, this time on page 5:

It is in particular this last sentence of the quotation, namely just and fair rules of intestate succession, that comprise the essence of this legislation. Without repeating each of the rules contained in the Bill in detail, I just wish to say that the passing of this Bill will undoubtedly result in justice being done where at all possible.

Finally, I have a few remarks to make about clause 1 (4) (e) of the Bill. It provides that an adopted child is deemed to be a descendant of his adoptive parent or parents, and not a descendant of his natural parent or parents. In essence this means that for the purposes of intestate succession the adopted child is completely detached from his own natural family. In the commission’s report this matter is dealt with on page 27, and again I quote:

This new principle embodied in this Bill is a major step in the right direction. Adoption is in itself at a certain stage a trauma for any child and parent, and this new clause in the Bill is not only right and fair, but also correct from a social point of view and from the point of view of family law.

I wish to conclude by making the statement that this legislation complies in all respects with the rules of efficiency and fairness and keeps abreast of the demands of a modern society. Thus the commission states on page 29 of its report:

On behalf of this side of the House I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in associating myself with the hon member Mr Van Gend. There are various aspects that one could no doubt discuss at greater length, but I do not intend taking up a great deal of the time of this House. I want to examine some of the amendments being effected.

The first concerns the provision in clause 1 (c) (i) in terms of which the spouse currently receives the amount of R50 000 or a child’s share, which can be adjusted by notice in the Gazette. I am not quite sure whether I am satisfied with that, but I shall not oppose it. I think the hon the Minister is aware—this is also mentioned in the report—that in other countries, for example in Western Australia, the amendments are considered to be important enough to be effected in Parliament and not by way of regulation. The most important point, however, is that the present position is that where a person is married in community of property, the surviving spouses inherits R50 000 or an amount which, together with her half of the estate, does not exceed R50 000 or a child’s share, whichever is the greater. A rectification is now being effected in terms of which it is accepted that what she possesses on the basis of her rights in terms of the law of property of spouses, is made independent of this provision. In my opinion this is a new and correct approach.

Secondly, with reference to what the previous speaker said, I also wish to refer to the position of the adopted child. In terms of this Bill on intestate succession his position is being made precisely equivalent to that of the natural child born within the marriage. This is a very positive development. At present an adopted child may inherit from both his natural parents and their blood relations as well as his adoptive parents, but not from the blood relations of the latter. In terms of this measure the child is being detached completely from his natural parents and for all purposes the adoptive parents are accepted as the natural parents of the child. Clause 1 (5) deals with this.

Another important aspect is the degree of codification—the hon member for Bethal also referred to this—and the incorporation of the rules of accrual after renouncement, as dealt with in clause 1 (4) (c). In general it is indeed the case that there is a degree of codification here with this adjustment. I wish that when I was studying the law of succession, the legislature had been as good to me, too, as to put that before me. I remember that from the days when I was studying under Prof N J J van der Merwe. He was later in Justice training and was in my opinion one of the most brilliant lawyers I have ever known.

Would he be able to say the same of his student?

He came very close to doing so, because he said that if his student would only learn, he could become better than his professor. I recall that once, when we had to distribute estates in terms of the law of intestate succession—hon members will recall how this used to be done in terms of the Aasdoms law, the Ou Schependoms law, the new Schependoms law, the Interpretation, the Oktrooi and so on—a friend of mine distributed his estate in such a way that in the end the legator also inherited one-sixteenth of the estate. Prof Van der Merwe’s comment on that was: That is impossible unless one believes in ghosts. [Interjections.] I think that students are going to be grateful that the legislature is making matters easier for them. Those who administer estates in future in terms of the law of intestate succession will have far fewer problems. I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr Chairman, I should very much like to convey my appreciation to the SA Law Commission, which has undertaken the task of effecting codification by way of an in-depth study, and eventually to produce legislation as well. I should be neglecting my duty were I not also to thank the standing committee for the fact that they thoroughly discussed the Bill while nevertheless referring it to Parliament with out delay.

Unfortunately this Bill was delayed in that there was a connection between it and the Bill we shall be dealing with next, namely the Children’s Status Bill, with reference to the situation of the extramarital child and his right, or otherwise, to inherit through intestate succession from blood relations. However, the fact remains that we now have the Bill before us.

It is somewhat late in the year for the people who are writing examinations and students of the law of succession to derive benefit from this. I can only express the hope that lecturers in the law of succession will take note of the fact that the legislation has not yet been passed and that they will have to give the students a final opportunity to take cognisance of the edicts and ordinances. However, it is quite possible that we shall dispose of the legislation promptly so that the Act will still be promulgated in time for the final examinations, in which case the people who are writing examinations will have the benefit of a very concise and clinical analysis of our law of intestate succession.

However, the whole matter is not so simple. If hon members think that we have now disposed of the law of intestate succession in a few paragraphs, they are making a big mistake. I refer, for example, to a study by Adv Linda Schoeman, which I have before me and which I want to recommend to hon members if there are any of them who are interested. If there are practitioners among them, copies can be supplied. This analysis comprising approximately 14 to 15 pages demonstrates that a wide variety of possibilities may result from these few pages of codified law of intestate succession.

A great many possibilities are contained in a few sentences, and it is unnecessary for me to dwell on this, except to point out that the art of law-making, namely to embrace a whole world in a very short piece of legislation, really comes into its own here. It is a whole world of possibilities, of legators who die intestate as widowers, of legators who die intestate while their wives are still alive, of a legator whose only relations are his parents, and of a legator with brothers and their legatees, but no children of his own. Therefore this legislation deals with a wide range of possibilities.

The matter that clearly interests all hon members is the position of the wife and the question of whether or not she ought to receive a rightful share and whether her share of the estate—had she been married in community of property or not, or even in terms of what she could otherwise have obtained if the accrual dispensation had been applicable—should be calculated against her share or not. We are rectifying this at this stage.

We are placing it beyond all doubt that we are concerned about the surviving husband or wife and his or her duty of maintenance in respect of the children. In paragraph 4. 2. 4 of the report, in which the whole issue of a minimum share is discussed, this is associated by commentators to the need to ensure that the wife and children will have a roof over their heads. At that stage—it is now almost two years ago, namely April 1985—the committee decided in view of this consideration that the minimum share ought to be R100 000. Therefore a wife would be able to claim the first R100 000 of the intestate estate provided the commission’s recommendations were accepted literally. However, the legislature saw fit to entrust this to the Minister. I almost said “to a trustworthy Minister”, but I shall not go that far.

The fact remains that thus far the recommendation has not been implemented and the Minister now has the power to stipulate it. The hon member for Sandton asks what I have in mind.

[Inaudible.]

I have in mind studying the recommendation by the SA Law Commission and the considerations that led to their recommending R100 000 at that stage. We shall certainly have to establish the state of the market.

For example, I read in a supplement to one of the Cape newspapers that the house market in Cape Town is reviving and becoming very active. Whereas on the one hand this gives joy to other people, it is also true that we shall have to take cognisance of this fact as far as this situation is concerned. It would have been very easy for me to tell the hon member that I was thinking in terms of R100 000. That would be in line with the recommendation by the SA Law Commission, but if we use the yardstick that they used, we really must also be guided by the reasonable and fair price of a house.

There is also the question of who dies intestate. In the report it is indicated that it is specifically the smaller estates where there is no testament which are at issue. On page 4 of the report it is pointed out that the average balance for distribution in intestate estates was R6 050 against the average of R32 000 in testate estates. That is according to a study over a specific period that was submitted to the commission. The period is not very important. What is important is the proportion and the fact that there is a trend which indicates that the intestate estate has less over for distribution than the testate estate.

This in turn gives one the impression, if I were to take the argument of the hon member for Sandton to its logical conclusion, that it is more important for people with a smaller estate to think in terms of ultimate destination than people with a larger estate. I do not think it would be correct to draw that inference. I think that it is in fact a question of people who are inclined to wonder, if a small amount is at issue, why they should be concerned about it. That may be the tendency among the public. The fact remains that we must encourage people to draw up a will in order to have clarity and certainty about the matter.

Then, too, we have a variety of communities in this country whose approach to family law is sometimes based on a different culture and even on other legal systems. As far as they are concerned, I said in the other House that if one is not happy with the rules of intestate succession one must be sure to draw up one’s will. That is accepted. It is also possible to dispose of this matter before the time by way of contract or else by way of the creation of a trust inter vivos or mortis causa if one is not happy with the rules of intestate succession.

The fact is, therefore, that we are on the eve of a further development as far as our legal system is concerned. It is an interesting development but it does nevertheless leave us with a feeling of regret because we are taking leave of something which the lawyers have been accustomed to over the years, and that was to struggle through the fine print of Wille and Wille and subsequent writers such as Van der Westhuizen, Rowlands and also our good friends Nico van der Merwe and others. The fact remains that I want to warn people that we are not placing a simplified process on the Statute Book now. What we are going to place on the Statute Book is a clear, unambiguous exposition of new rules. We have not simply simplified and combined the old rules. It would be an oversimplification to regard this in that light.

This is going to mean a tremendous amount of learning for the student to do, and accordingly I urge them to start in good time because once they start work on the stirpes and per stirpes, many students are going to find that it has required a few nights of study.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, unless hon members object, I shall deliver the Second Reading speech in Afrikaans.

*In recent years several steps have been taken, in the Western world in particular, to improve the legal position of the extramarital child. Since as early as 1960, voices have been raised in favour of this, not so much in imitation of the Western tendency, but rather on the grounds of fairness and justice, which require that a child should not be penalised for the sins of its parents, and because there is no rational reason for discriminating against such a child.

During the past few years, the South African Law Commission has been devoting its attention to the legal position of the child in many spheres. The commission has also investigated the legal position of extramarital children in South African law. Its report was tabled in Parliament…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister said that if nobody objected, he would deliver his speech in Afrikaans, but I object and would like him to deliver it in English. I say this in a light tone.

… on 13 February 1986. The Bill under discussion arises from the recommendation made by the Law Commission.

The commission found that illegitimacy, as well as incestuousness, had a prolonged effect on many aspects of a person’s status. Historically, these negative aspects are the result of society’s condemnation of extramarital, adulterous and incestuous relationships. Efforts were made to discourage these relationships by denying the child certain privileges which affected his status. It is clear that such an attitude does not have the desired effect and that the innocent child is the person who suffers.

This Bill is aimed at improving the status of the extramarital child and bringing it into line, as far as possible, with that of the legitimate child.

I shall now give a brief explanation of the various clauses of the Bill.

†I realize that I may have taxed hon members’ powers of understanding so far, and I am only too pleased to comply with the request of the hon member for Mariannhill. What I now propose to do is to continue in a language that is, as Mark Twain said, “neither his nor mine”. I am pleased that the hon member did not insist that I address him in his home language.

The position in our law regarding the presumption of paternity has an unfair result at present. When, in judicial proceedings, it is proved or admitted by the defendant or the accused that he had intercourse with the plaintiff or complainant at any stage, either during the period in which the child could have been conceived, or not, it is presumed that he is the father of the extramarital child. This presumption of paternity imposes an onus on the defendant or the accused to prove the contrary. The absurd situation may therefore arise that years after a man has been divorced from his wife he may be required, on account of their intercourse before the divorce, to prove that he is not the father of a child that was born later. In order to remove this unsatisfactory aspect from our law, clause 1 of the Bill envisages that the presumption of paternity would only come into effect when it is proved or admitted that intercourse took place at a time when the child could have been conceived.

The test to determine paternity has, over the past few years, become so advanced and reliable that two categories of blood tests have already been accepted by courts in evidence. The one is based on an analysis of red blood cells. By comparing the blood groups of the mother, child and alleged father, it can be established either that the latter may possibly be the father or that he can definitely not be the father. The advantage of the test lies mostly in the latter possibility, since the first does not exclude the possibility that another person with the same blood group may be the father. The accuracy of this method is estimated to be 99,9%. The HLA system of tissue-typing is based on an analysis of the white blood cells. It has been found that with this system, together with blood tests carried out on red blood cells, it can be shown, with a degree of probability of 99,85%, that a particular person is more likely to be the father than any other person chosen at random. Strong proof or counterproof of paternity can therefore be furnished.

The Law Commission considered various ways of ensuring that the courts would be able to put the results of these blood tests to the best possible use, and decided on the creation of a presumption which is contained in clause 2. A party to a disputed paternity case who refuses to undergo blood tests at the request of the other party or to allow a child under his parental power to undergo such tests shall, in terms of the clause, be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have refused so as to conceal the truth regarding the paternity of the child. The aim of the presumption is to compel parties indirectly to allow the taking of blood samples.

When the mother of an extramarital child is still a minor, the position regarding guardianship is uncertain. In clause 3 any uncertainty is being eliminated by providing that the guardianship of such a child shall vest in the guardian of the mother, while custody of the child shall vest in the mother. If the mother is under the age of 21 years, but has through marriage, for example, acquired the status of a major, guardianship and custody of the child will vest in the mother.

An extramarital child whose parents marry each other after his birth acquires legitimate status for all purposes of the law. However, uncertainty does exist regarding the question whether this status is acquired from the date of marriage or retrospectively from the date of birth. Retrospective acquisition of such status may result in problems regarding the law of succession and uncertainty regarding domicile and the law of contract. In order to eliminate such problems and to bring about legal certainty, clause 4 provides that legitimate status will be conferred on an extramarital child only from the date of marriage of the parents.

Sir, acquisition of legitimate status is historically subject to the condition that the parents were, at the time of conception or birth of the child, legally able to marry each other. It is therefore uncertain whether adulterine and incestuous children are legitimised by the subsequent marriage of their parents.

If the principle is accepted that such a child is as little to blame for his origins as any other extramarital child, there can certainly be no objection to his acquiring legitimate status upon the subsequent marriage of his parents. Such a step would, furthermore, bring the law more into line with reality, where an adulterine child and his married parents may be living together as a family unit. In clause 4 it is further envisaged that such children will acquire legitimate status at the marriage of their parents.

Sir, the Human Tissue Act, Act 65 of 1983, does not make mention of the status of a child conceived by donor gametes. In terms of clause 5 such a child, conceived during a marriage, shall be deemed to be the legitimate child of the couple, provided the artificial insemination took place with the consent of both spouses. A presumption is created that the consent was in fact given. All legal ties between the child and the donor are severed.

A voidable marriage is in all respects a valid marriage until the court annuls it. There are, however, conflicting points of view as to whether such an annulment is retrospective to the date of marriage or not. In order to bring about certainty and to provide the most reasonable solution, the status of children born of such a marriage is to be placed on an equal footing with that of children born of a marriage which has been dissolved by divorce. Clause 6 provides that the legitimate status of such children shall not be affected by an annulment.

During the past year I have also introduced other legislation which is either specifically or generally aimed at improving and rationalising the legal position of the child. I am thinking, for example, of the Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act, 1987, as well as the Intestate Succession Bill, 1987, which has just been read a second time. In the former, provision is made for the appointment of family advocates and family counsellors whose main task is to look after the interests of dependent children during divorces and related proceedings. In the Intestate Succession Bill it is provided, inter alia, that the adopted child, for the purposes of succession, is deemed to be a descendant of his adoptive parent and not of his natural parent, and that illegitimacy does not affect the competence of one blood relation to inherit the intestate estate of another blood relation.

We have therefore, in the duration of one year, been able to address this very important matter, thanks to the good work of the South African Law Commission, the Standing Committee on Justice and a joint committee of Parliament.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, there are certain clauses in this Bill which we on this side of the House do not support. We are very appreciative of the principle of the Bill and of the fact that the fundamental status of the illegitimate child is being established in such a way that he will not have to go through life branded as illegitimate. Nevertheless, there are certain aspects of the method by which this is to be done with which we disagree, and we shall deal only with those aspects in a little more detail.

We agree that the principle embodied in clause 1 is sound. The presumption previously existed—it was interpreted in that way—that if, at any stage before the birth, a particular man had had intercourse with the woman, that man could well be the father of the child. That was not a fair presumption.

It was sometimes incorrectly interpreted. I think the original intention was merely to create the presumption that someone who had had extramarital relations with a particular woman at some stage or another would do so again on a subsequent occasion. However, it was interpreted as meaning that if someone had had extramarital intercourse with that particular woman once, he was the father of that child, and it was up to him to refute this, regardless of whether there could have been conception at that stage or not.

Our objections are chiefly aimed at clauses 2, 3 and 5. My learned colleagues, or rather my colleagues on this side of the House, will deal with clauses 2 and 3.

That was quite an admission!

I beg pardon, there are, in fact, learned colleagues on this side of the house. I presume there are indeed hon members on the other side.

What I wanted to say, however, is that on one hand we are sorry that the original clause 4 was omitted, because I have to say in all honesty that I think the hon members of the PFP proposed a most worthwhile amendment which, unfortunately, was not accepted by the standing committee.

Its aim was to make the father of an illegitimate child, or the family on the father’s side, liable in respect of maintenance on the same basis as the family of the mother of an illegitimate child. It is a pity that we have not eliminated this existing piece of sexual discrimination.

As I have already said, other hon members on this side of the House will deal with those clauses more comprehensively, but I should like to proceed to discuss clauses 4 and 5.

As far as clause 4 is concerned, the present position is that a child is legitimated if his biological parents marry each other at a later stage, regardless of whether or not they were able to marry each other when the child was conceived. Allow me to explain the position briefly. The illegitimate child of a biological father, who committed adultery and subsequently married the woman with whom he committed adultery after she was divorced, now becomes the legitimate child of those two parents from the moment the marriage is solemnized.

We have no problem with this, because we have always espoused the principle that the biological parents should have the strongest claim to a child.

In this case we have to point out that it could lead to great unhappiness. It could be that the non-biological father and the mother of the child were married at the time when the child was conceived in adultery, and that the non-biological father has raised that child for 14 or 15 years. Then they are divorced, and the mother subsequently marries the biological father of the child, and from that day on the non-biological father has no further say over the child. It could be that he has always regarded the child as his own, but from that day on the biological father who is now married to the mother is the legal father, and the nurturing father, if we may call him that, has no further claim to that child.

It is sadly true that this can happen, because we put a great premium on the fact that a child is actually the biological or blood-child of the person who conceived him. The bloodline and the biological parents are the decisive factors.

If we look at the next clause, we see that it deviates from that principle totally. This principle established in clause 4 is thrown overboard completely. Here we are dealing with the gametes. If I use names to explain the situation, it might be easier to understand. If Adam and Eve cannot have children together, they may be able to find an outsider who will provide a gamete which can then be joined with Eve’s gamete, and she remains the host mother. Adam and Eve are then regarded as the legal parents of that child. The procreator, the one who donated the gamete, disappears from the scene completely. Here we must just keep in mind that, because the gamete used came from an outsider, Adam is not the biological father of that child. Adam and Eve are nevertheless the legal parental couple. [Interjections.]

Now we can go a little further and examine the case of the surrogate mother. I am not saying it was the intention to deal with that problem here. Let us see what happens if the father and mother are not capable of having children of their own in the natural way, and they go to the grandparents. With their permission, the grandmother becomes the surrogate mother of the child who was conceived by the joining of the father and mother’s gametes. She is the surrogate mother, but the moment the child is born, if the surrogateship happened with the consent of the grandparents, they become the legal parents of the child. The intention was actually for the father and mother who provided the gametes and wanted a child of their own to be the parents. The only way they could have a child was by using the grandmother as a surrogate mother. However, it is not their legitimate child; it is the legitimate child of the grandparents.

The strange thing about this is that if my wife’s parents had been involved, she would be the sister of that child, and if, for example, my wife should die and the child was a girl, I could legally marry my wife’s sister, although that sister of my wife was actually my blood-child. [Interjections.]

Hon members can therefore see where we will end up if we move away from the established convention that the legitimacy of a child is determined on the grounds of blood and blood descent—that is to say the biological fathers and mothers. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I will be most thankful as long as I never have to accept that hon member as my child. I hope the legislation is not changed so as to allow him to become my child on any basis. [Interjections.]

We can obviate all these problems simply by acting in the correct way. A child can be legitimized either by subsequent marriage or by adoption. Why then do we not make use of the adoption mechanism to legitimize that child? The surrogate mother can be kept out of the picture and the child can be adopted by the biological parents if the Children’s Act inter alia is appropriately amended.

Yet suppose a child is conceived in such a way, and when it is born the biological parents no longer want to adopt it. Then we are still faced with the problem that the poor child who was conceived in this way is an illegitimate child.

We can, however, get round this. When gametes are to be joined in this manner in order to conceive a child, consent has to be given. If we set out with the fiction that consent or a request for a surrogate mother to be used is also regarded as a request for the adoption of the unborn child, the problem is eliminated because we are dealing with the correct facts, but this requires amendments to the legislation.

This child which has issued from the gametes of A and B therefore becomes A and B’s child, because A and B have consented to the medical practitioner that their gametes may be used in order to beget a child for them. That consent will then be deemed a request for the adoption of that child, and at his birth the child will therefore be their legitimate child.

We cannot then find ourselves in a position, as that hon member argued, in which he might one day be my son. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Bethal for expressing his appreciation of this principle. However, he also opposed various clauses, namely clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5.

I wish to point out that, with the exception of clause 5 and an amendment to clause 2 moved by the CP, this matter was passed without opposition on the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I did not express any opposition to clause 4 here.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member may proceed.

I shall reply to the hon member in respect of the various problems he raised as I refer to them in the course of my speech.

This Bill arises out of the SA Law Commission’s report of October 1985, which dealt with the legal position of illegitimate children. This report of almost 180 pages examined the matter in great depth.

The main purpose of this report and this legislation is, therefore, to normalise the position of illegitimate children as far as is practicable and to grant them, to the greatest possible extent, the same status as legitimate children so that they do not have to bear the stigma of illegitimacy.

There are various provisions which seek to achieve this purpose. In the first place, the guardianship and custody of illegitimate children of minor mothers are being regulated so that they may be treated on the same basis as legitimate children.

The matter of the date of the legitimising of illegitimate children is also dealt with. In this regard there are two possibilities. One is that it must be determined with retrospective effect from the date of birth, and the other is that the legitimising shall take effect from the date of marriage of the parents.

This issue was argued in great detail. The Law Commission was asked to examine the retrospective determination of legitimisation, but the standing committee was of the opinion that the safest and most correct action at this stage would be to determine it from the date of marriage.

The Bill also regulates the status of children born of voidable marriages. As hon members know, a marriages is voidable if it was contracted under compulsion, if one of the parties is permanently impotent without the other party’s knowledge, if the woman is pregnant by a third person without the other party’s knowledge, if one of the parties suffers from permanent sterility or infertility and deceitfully conceals the fact, or, of course, if the marriage was not consented to. In such cases marriages can be voided.

The question which now arises is: What happens to the children born of such a marriage. Do they become illegitimate children as a result? In terms of this measure, which rectifies the matter, they remain legitimate.

The measure also deals with two other matters which are of interest. Clauses 1 and 2 deal with legal proceedings in which paternity is at issue. This relates to the presumption of paternity when sexual intercourse has taken place between the mother and the person accused of being the father. Under common law, the presumption of paternity operated whenever it was proved that sexual intercourse had taken place, regardless of when—it could have taken place months or years or even a few days before birth. As anyone would concede, that was completely unfair, and clause 1 now determines that the presumption may only operate if sexual intercourse took place at a time when the child could have been conceived.

Clause 2 deals with the proof of paternity, in particular by means of blood tests. It is a simple fact that, as a result of tremendous developments in the field of medicine, there has been a great improvement in the reliability of blood tests to determine whether a person is the father or not. The analysis of red blood cells can be used to determine with an accuracy of nearly 99,9% whether a person might be the father or is definitely not the father. In the case of Van der Horst v Viljoen 1977(1)SA, it was also established that white and red blood cell tests considered together could indicate with a 99,85% degree of probability that a specific person, rather than any other person, was the father.

The essential point is that this is a measure which can be used as strong evidence of a person’s paternity. The problem is, however, that people no longer make themselves available for tests of this kind so readily. This matter was taken up by the standing committee and is now being addressed in this measure. The presumption has now been created that when a person refuses to undergo such a test, he is doing so with the aim of concealing paternity.

This involves a presumption of credibility which can be used by the court in order to determine whether a person is the father or not. He might be able to give good reasons for not being prepared to submit to the taking of a blood sample. There may, for example, be bona fide religious grounds or medical reasons which he can submit to the court. In such a case, this presumption will not come into operation.

I wish to submit with the greatest respect that this is the best solution. It will not greatly inhibit the discretion of the court, and it is a good thing that the discretion of the court will not be limited.

The hon member for Bethal actually referred to clause 5, which is at the centre of all the controversy, and which concerns the artificial insemination of a woman by the gametes of a third party. The first point which should be made is that this measure does not concern the legalisation of the artificial insemination of third-party gametes. That matter has already been dealt with by the Human Tissue Act of 1983. This provision regulates only the legal consequences of the situation. This measure therefore does not address the legality or otherwise of the procedure, but concerns the children issuing from it and the consequences for those children.

During a debate on this matter in 1983, the ethical aspects were argued at length and discussed fully. I do not think this is the appropriate occasion on which to talk about it in detail.

The aspect mentioned by the hon member for Bethal was that the children issuing from this practice should be legitimised by adoption. I should like to refer him to pages 28 and 128 of the Afrikaans text of the report published by the Law Commission, which indicates that it is not possible in law to effect a joint adoption by the husband and wife concerned. If one had to rely on adoption, it would be to the advantage of the biological parent, because the biological parent would be the legal parent, while the other parent would not have any rights in respect of the child. As far as adoption is concerned, therefore, the biological parent would be able to prevent the prospective foster-parent, who is not the biological parent, from adopting the child. That would be unfair.

Both parents agreed to artificial insemination by this method. Consequently, it is the intention that those children should ultimately be part of that family. I wish to submit, therefore, that consent to adoption is, in fact, already given at that stage. I should therefore like to support this measure.

Mr Chairman, I should like, as with the previous Bill, to lend my support to the passage of the Children’s Status Bill.

I must say that I do not share the concerns as mentioned earlier by the chief spokesman for the CP to the Bill. I think some of his concerns have been answered already and will perhaps be answered further by the hon Minister a little later.

The provisions bring a more enlightened approach to the rights of children born out of wedlock. Also included in the Bill are provisions relating to a more modern approach to blood tests regarding paternity and presumptions flowing therefrom. However, there is one aspect of this Bill which I find somewhat disappointing. I would like to dwell on it for a brief moment or two.

In our law there is a duty on the father and the mother of an extramarital child to support that child. If they are unable to support the child he must be supported by the parents of his mother and his brothers and sisters on his mother’s side. This duty is reciprocal. In other words the duty of support flows from the child to the mother and her parents and brothers and sisters and in certain circumstances could flow back to the child itself.

The Law Commission noted the inequality of this situation and recommended that this reciprocal duty of support be extended to the blood relations of the natural father of the child. Accordingly, the Bill as originally published which went before the standing committee contained a clause giving effect to that recommendation. Unfortunately, this clause was axed by majority vote in the standing committee and is no longer part of this legislation. In my view that is an enormous pity. In this action I do believe that the Standing Committee on Justice erred rather badly.

Injustice.

I would not say that. It is not a committee on injustice, but in this case it certainly erred.

We should never lose sight of the fact that this law looks primarily at the interests of the child and not at the interests of the respective parents and their families.

By adopting the clause recommended by the Law Commission, two advantages could have been obtained. Firstly, in matters of support, the extramarital child would have been placed in the same position as a child born of a legal marriage. Secondly, the anachronism that the duty of support of an extramarital child devolves only upon the parents of the mother and not upon those of the father would have been eliminated once and for all and a much fairer dispensation would have been created. However, this was not to be, and the legislation before us is, in my view, poorer for its omission.

However, having said that, Sir, I would like, in all other respects, to welcome this Bill and to give it our support.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Sandton. I should like to thank him for his support of this Bill. I am not going to reply to his criticism; I shall leave it at that, and merely thank him for his support of the Bill.

This Bill is the result of a comprehensive investigation by the Law Commission into the legal position of inter alia the extra-marital child which deals with the status of a person. The concept “status” merely indicates one’s position in respect of the law. The status is determined by all the qualities a person possesses, or the situation in which he finds himself, to which the law also attaches consequences.

The concept “status” is defined by D H van Wyk in an unpublished LLB thesis which was submitted to Unisa. The title of the thesis is not relevant. In terms of the definition, status is a durable factor or condition which has a specific effect on the natural person’s juristic and contractual capacity and the capacity to appear. These capacities are also known as legal capacities. It is true that all legal subjects have juristic capacity, but this juristic capacity does not extend equally far in respect of everyone. For example, the legal position of an extramarital child differs from that of a legitimate child.

Subsequently I want to confine myself briefly to clause 5, and give my view on this clause. This particular Bill, and more specifically clause 5, places blood relationship foremost, which is also the common-law position in respect of parenthood. This is quite simply the result of logical development. It is true that medical science has obviated a great deficiency in family life by means of artificial insemination. At the same time, however, this has created a number of legal problems which have not been addressed fully in the South African legal system, because the techniques related to this scientific development has confronted the legislature with the legal consequences of the so-called New Biology. I am referring to the effects of this on the family as an institution. The law will have to take this gap between the prevailing law and scientific reality into account in its legal development. That is in fact what is intended with this Bill.

Previously the father of a child who had been conceived by means of artificial insemination could, for example, raise the question of his non-paternity as defence in a claim for maintenance. At the same time the mother of that child could raise this non-paternity as defence in a claim for care of or access to such a child.

A further aspect which will be discussed in greater detail by a subsequent speaker is the question of surrogate mothers. I think the Law Commission will give attention to this aspect. I merely want to ask the hon the Minister, however, also to give attention to the question of pregnancy, which is a physiological process that entails physical and psychological risks, paying specific attention to this aspect. What will the surrogate mother’s right of recourse be if she has to undergo such physical or psychological risks, as opposed to the responsibility of the so-called test-tube couple?

It is true that the child is always the most important party. In this Bill, the untenable position in terms of which such a child is illegitimate in terms of the Children’s Act, No 33 of 1960, and more specifically section 71, is finally being rectified. I should like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to confine myself in particular to clause 2 of this Bill and therefore am not going to react to what the hon member for Bloemfontein North said in connection with clause 5.

I want to make it clear that we do not support this Bill, inter alia because of this particular clause. Clause 1 introduces a presumption of law in terms of which it is clear that if anyone has had carnal intercourse at a specific time, a presumption is created that that person is the father of the child. We have no objection to that.

The problem lies with clause 2, however, because there is a complete answer for such a father if paternity is at issue and he says he will subject himself to a blood test. That test can prove almost 100%, say 99,85%, that he is not the father. In other words, it gives him an opportunity to prove the contrary.

If the minor mother of such a child loses the guardianship of that child, however—she loses it in terms of clause 3—the presumption in clause 2 can no longer be used against her. This is a problem and a deficiency in the legislation, a hiatus, because it cannot count against her since she cannot grant permission. The problem is that the grandparent can refuse, because the grandparent has guardianship of the child.

We say this can be prevented if the hon the Minister amends clause 3 (1) (a) by adding after the word “mother” “provided that such minor unmarried mother have the authority for the purposes of clause 2 to grant permission for intended blood samples to be taken”. That presumption can then still apply against her. At present, however, this is a deficiency which cannot be remedied. We therefore say that this clause can be amended meaningfully by having this presumption applied against her as well.

We also have problems with clause 2, which merely creates a presumption of credibility or non-credibility. In the case of carnal intercourse a presumption is created. When intercourse takes place at a certain time, the legislature is prepared to create a presumption by saying that this person is the father. In clause 2, by neglecting to make use of the blood test which can undeniably determine, in the interests of the child, who the father of that child is, use is made of what I am tempted to call a less secure incentive, of compelling a person to agree to find a father for that child. Surely we are considering the child’s interests. That is why this presumption must also become far more prominent in that case, in that he will then be regarded as the father of that child.

Why, in the case of a false accusation of a father, which can be negatively refuted, can one not say that if such woman refuses to have this test done, the alleged father will not be regarded as the father. This would mean—we are putting it positively—that these scientific techniques that exist today and which can eliminate all possible doubt will definitely have the necessary effect. We should also recommend in this case, if this would be of assistance, that clause 2 be amended to extend the presumption in such a way that it can be determined in the case of the father whether he is in fact the father of the child, and that in the case of the woman, it can be determined whether the other party is not the father of the child. In fact, we proposed this in the standing committee. That is all I have to say in this connection.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Ermelo proposed a specific amendment in respect of clause 3 to the hon the Minister. This hon member has a problem with guardianship, to which reference is made in clause 3, which would mean that the mother of an extra-marital child could be placed in a position in which she could not give permission. It is for the hon the Minister to decide whether or not he wants to make provision for the amendment of that clause. The other provision, viz that when the presumption that certain positive deductions have to be made is implemented, creates something of a problem. There may also be certain cases in which someone does not subject himself to a blood test and that negative deduction should not then be made. Health aspects and religious convictions, factors which could be a problem to such a party, may play a part, and he should not necessarily be burdened by such a truly positive presumption.

Let us consider some of the other clauses. I think clause 1 is introducing a very important new aspect. It is a refinement and improvement of the principle as laid down in the case of the State v Swart. It deals more specifically with the admission of intercourse during a period when that child could have been conceived, and not simply any period, a provision which had a very broad and detrimental effect in the application of that principle in the past. I think that as one hon member has said, this principle, as contained in clause 2, reflects a positive and modern approach, because we have the technical aids by means of which paternity can be determined, and if anyone were to refuse to subject himself to such a test without valid reasons, a negative deduction must necessarily be made, since he does not want to take the court into his confidence by presenting the true facts to the court. This clause is also important in that it has reference to both parties. Either of the parties, the man or the woman, can therefore insist on such tests, and if this cannot be complied with, that presumption applies to both of them.

It is interesting that this presumption creates an additional presumption, in addition to the presumption in the case of a child who is born extramaritally, in which case we use the precept Pater est quern nuptiae demonstrant, which means: “He who is appointed by marriage is the father.” Once that precept has been implemented, this further presumption can also be created, not only in the interests of the child, but ultimately also in the interests of the father and mother as such. In the well-known case of Seetal v Pravitha and Another 1983 (3) SA 827, Mr Justice Didcott said the following on page 827 where the interests of the child itself are at issue:

Perhaps this solves the problem in respect of the requirements for guardianship to which reference was made earlier. I quote:

Later in that extremely long court report, on page 855, there is a quotation by Mr Justice Didcott from the verdict in the case of W versus W [1970] 1 All ER 1157 (on 1164 F-G, 1165 D-F):

Mr Chairman, I believe that clause 3 of the measure under discussion deals with the guardianship of an extramarital child, when the mother herself is a minor, in a very meaningful way. Nevertheless, this clause also deals in a very practical way with the situation in which she has de facto custody of that child—in which, therefore, she herself nurses the child, despite the fact that she is a minor and therefore does not have contractual or other juristic capacities.

Clause 4 comprises one of the more important components of the Bill, viz the ensuing marriage to legalise the birth of an extramarital child irrespective of whether the two parties could marry one another at the time of the conception of the child or the child’s birth. There are the problems mentioned by the hon member for Bethal with reference to a child born extramaritally. I shall come back to that later, however, when I deal with another aspect of the legislation.

Clauses 6 and 7 deal with the voidable marriage and the status of the child who is affected by this. What is important, however, is that clause 7 draws a parallel between the annulment of a marriage and a divorce. This clause makes the provisions that are applicable in the case of the Divorce Act applicable to the children as well, to ensure that a judge will not grant such an order unless he has been satisfied that the children’s needs have been taken care of and that provision has been made for their care.

I believe that the provisions in the legislation under discussion are positive provisions. Regardless of whether the child was born out of love or perhaps as a result of an irresponsible relationship, the issue here is that he should not be prejudiced as a result, and that he will not have to contend with the stigma attached to his extramarital birth. After all, the child did not ask to be born.

The focus in clause 5 (1) is on artificial insemination. We are experiencing an era of exceptional progress, particularly in the sphere of biotechnology. We are living in an era in which one can get almost anything in a plastic bag. If one may use the contemporary English idiom, “sex will never be the same again”. In the cases under discussion, people also make use of outside assistance which may contribute to the birth of a child. [Interjections.] Basically that is what is being dealt with in this clause. I believe that with the new techniques in particular—I am referring to the medical and other scientific techniques—there will be greater success in this sphere of science as well.

I do not think this legislation really deals with surrogate motherhood as such. There are certain specific problems concerning surrogate motherhood, which will have to be addressed in due course. It is my information that this matter is the subject of an enquiry by the SA Law Commission, but for the sake of completeness I think it would be a good thing to take a look at what happened in Detroit in 1983 in connection with the case of Malahoff v Strivers.

In terms of the contract Mrs Strivers agreed to become a surrogate mother for the Malahoff couple by means of artificial insemination. A child was conceived and born as a result of this insemination, but unfortunately this child had a physical disability which would have caused the child to be mentally retarded. The implication of this was that the parents—the donors, therefore, of the cells—said that further treatment for this child should be stopped. The woman who had given birth to the child said she had no motherly association with the child and did not want it. Eventually the State had to take over the guardianship of this child.

It was eventually announced on a television programme that they would determine by means of blood tests who the real father of this child was. There was an announcement on this television programme one night that the announcer was in possession of the results of the blood test. He eventually announced that Mr Malahoff was not the father of the child.

You see, Sir, there was a slight problem with the contract. The contract determined that after insemination had taken place, these parties would abstain from carnal intercourse. The contract neglected to mention carnal intercourse before the insemination, however.

Naturally this led to further complications, because Malahoff then sued Strivers because she had not performed in terms of the contract. The doctors were also sued by Strivers because the doctors had not informed the family about their own intimate relationship before this insemination or about the timing of their own sexual activities. Strivers sued Malahoff because in the meantime, after what had been alleged, she had determined that the child’s disability had been caused, as it were, by a virus that had come from Mr Malahoffs sperm-cells. In addition she sued them because they had made what initially had been private information, public.

One can appreciate the complexity of these legal aspects. I think these are matters which must be studied very well in the course of time.

It is also true that when a member of the family—we have heard about this—is prepared to do another member of the family a favour by giving birth to a child for that member of the family by means of surrogate motherhood, as is the case with the grandmother in Tzaneen, one can very easily become completely entangled, as the hon member for Bethal said, and one’s mother can easily become one’s sister, or one’s father one’s brother, and also one’s sister-in-law and brother-in-law respectively. [Interjections.]

The fact that the Bill does not address this by means of statutory law at this stage does not mean that the matter is not addressed by law, because it is dealt with by common law. This Bill deals with a specific case of artificial insemination, and that is the case in which a married man and woman mutually consent to permit that woman—that is this specific man’s wife—to be artificially inseminated by the gamete or gametes of another woman or another man. When a child is born after such insemination, the child is considered to be the child of the husband and wife involved. That is, the child is the legal child of the parents.

Order! There must be less talking and hon members must lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

There is no claim, duty or obligation between the child and the person whose gamete was used, unless that person is either the woman who eventually gives birth to that child or the husband of such a woman at the time of such artificial insemination.

This artificial insemination takes place in South Africa in terms of section 22 of the Human Tissue Act as well as the regulations promulgated in terms of that Act. This kind of artificial insemination is a reality in South Africa. Couples can make use of this method and receive assistance in doing so from medical experts. It is interesting that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically provides that a couple has the right to have children, a right which compels the physician to assist them in this connection. Artificial insemination is an acknowledged fact and an established practice. Ten years ago there were already half a million children who had been born after artificial insemination and in the Transvaal alone there were 3 000 at that stage.

To eliminate the fear of intermarriage and unwitting incest between children and receivers, however, the number of successful donations is restricted to five successful impregnations. There may be objections to the insemination of a woman by making use of the gametes of a person outside the marriage. One must not lose sight of the fact, however, that this method of insemination is used by parties who have a sincere desire to have children and, what is even more important, that they have no objection to doing this in exercising their freedom. It is difficult to distinguish this reality from a case in which the mother becomes pregnant as the result of a secret extramarital relationship and has a child without her husband’s knowing that he is not the father. The child therefore receives all the privileges of a child born from that marriage and no stigma of illegitimacy is attached to him. What is even worse is a case in which a father is aware of the fact that he is not the child’s father, but accepts expressly or tacitly that the child was born from the marriage and is therefore not declared an extramarital child. Such a child is not penalised at all.

To take it even further, one can mention a case in which a man who is infertile permits his wife to be inseminated in the conventional way by another man, and accepts the child as his own as if it was born from the marriage. This kind of assistance from outside is not foreign to humanity. The hon member for Bethal began with Adam and Eve, and I should like to point out what Genesis 16 says:

Then there is the case in which Rachel says to Jacob:

Later Rachel said:

This is written in Genesis 30. By quoting these passages I do not want to give a theological verdict on the desirability of doing this, but what is important is that if one believes that the Creator has a hand in this matter, one can easily come to terms with it.

I believe this legislation is topical and timeous and that it is placing South Africa on the forefront once again with regard to this important legal aspect of the law of persons. With these words I should like to support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth North was my benchmate from 1977 to 1981 and I found it pleasant to listen to him speaking in his inimitable style again. As he was discussing biotechnology which was making such progress—one can carry around all sorts of things in plastic bags—he reminded me of a comment someone made recently by saying a young lady was so unintelligent that she carried her brain wrapped in plastic in her handbag like a Pick ’n Pay chicken. I wondered whether it would not be beneficial if we could promote technology to allow more of us to carry around additional brains in our handbags or in an inner pocket.

As regards the Bill, the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that action against extramarital children arose from the disapproval of the community of the sins or misdemeanours of their parents and that this was the way it manifested itself. I suspect it went further; that it was not actually condemnation of the deed but that the child itself became the object of this condemnation. I believe it was a case of more severe action against the child than merely a verdict against the parents because, from what I can deduce from history, steps were not taken against the parents anywhere. The child had to bear the full wrath of the community.

I do not wish to go into details on the contents of the Bill because various hon members have already done this, as did the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech. I merely want to tell the hon member for Ermelo that the presumption in clause 2 cuts both ways. I am not certain whether I followed his argument correctly. If for instance the woman should refuse to have blood tests done, the presumption would be construed against her; in other words, against paternity of the alleged father. If I misunderstood him, I should like more information on what he said; I see no discrimination in the provision of clause 2.

The hon member for Bethal spoke about clause 5 and the question of surrogate motherhood. This sounds like a valid argument to me. I do not want to add, however, that the solution he suggests is a valid one, but it certainly appears that the provisions of clause 5, which deal with gamete donors, give a contrary explanation of the legal position as regards surrogate motherhood. I know the hon the Minister granted the SA Law Commission permission to investigate this matter as long ago as July. If the hon member for Bethal is right, however—it appears to me this could well be the case—the hon the Minister will have to request the Law Commission to pay speedier attention to this and even perhaps submit legislation with retrospective effect to this House. I suspect the piggyback grandmother will give birth to her child before we can submit further legislation on this.

I actually wish to address the hon the Minister on the provisions of clause 4 of the Bill, as introduced, and as negatived in the standing committee. The two Opposition Parties in this House, the CP and the PFP, also referred to this but no member of the NP has spoken on this subject. I cannot understand why this clause was negatived; in fact, if one examines the Afrikaans version of the report of the Law Commission, from page 92 to 98, one sees that this matter was thoroughly discussed.

In consequence of this, it seems to me that the negativing of this clause merely comes down to the fact that the duty of maintenance as regards the extramarital child definitely applies on the mother’s side but not on that of the father, arising from the existing finding in respect of Motan v Joosub in the 1930 Appeal Court case. The matter was thoroughly argued and, although some commentators requested that this duty to maintain be viewed somewhat restrictively, the principle was supported. In this regard I am referring to the recommendation under point 8. 50.

I should be pleased if the hon the Minister would deal with this; I do not know whether the standing committee informed him fully on the reasons why they negatived this clause. Unfortunately I am not a member of the standing committee and I should appreciate his furnishing us with more details on this point. I should like to see it passed but I shall leave it to the hon the Minister to reply.

Mr Chairman, I should like to pause for a few moments at the presumption of lack of credibility created by clause 2 of this Bill. Before doing this, I wish to emphasise that this side of the House welcomes the fact that Parliament is now occupying itself with legislation specifically to improve the status of children. In the process we should also very much like to thank the SA Law Commission for the work done in this regard. The arguments we are putting forward here are based solely on the jurisprudential reasons why we cannot support this Bill.

On looking at clause 2 we see very clearly that an important amendment is involved as far as this side of the House is concerned. A presumption is created here which we should like to call a lack of credibility presumption. I shall summarise clause 2 as follows:

For specific reasons we object to this presumption, which affects the credibility of the person concerned. At first glance the presumption as regards paternity certainly appears to have more force than the presumption regarding credibility. On closer analysis, however, it appears that this presumption concerning credibility, that is the presumption that the truth regarding paternity is being concealed, eventually has a very much stronger detrimental effect on the entire legal process—and that regardless of the fact that it is not stated either whether in this presumption we are dealing with evidential material or evidence as such. In this regard I should like to refer to the second edition of Sweet’s Bewysreg, on page 4 of which the distinction between evidence and evidential material is dealt with.

In a certain sense a presumption of lack of credibility is stronger and more detrimental to the person involved. A person against whom a presumption of paternity applies can refute this presumption by presenting evidence in rebuttal without jeopardising his credibility in the process of presentation of his evidence for eventual judgement by the iudex factu. As against this, however, under this presumption of lack of credibility created in clause 2, the person involved suffers the disadvantage that, in rebutting the presumption, his credibility is in jeopardy from the start because in the process of rebuttal he is encumbered with a burden of lack of credibility.

In our view it can happen too easily that the presiding officer may deduce that the person involved has not rebutted or cannot rebut the presumption of lack of credibility because this in itself will cast a shadow of lack of credibility on his evidence in rebuttal. Then we have come full circle. He loses his credibility by the legal effect of a presumption and that lack of credibility affects the credibility of his evidence.

It is the point of view of this side of the House that such a state of affairs is not a sign of sound administration of justice. Consequently an amended clause 2 was submitted by the CP on the standing committee. On this occasion we wish once again, with all due respect for the Law Commission and the hon the Minister, to refer to that proposed amendment. It is our considered opinion that, if this amendment were put into effect—as also proposed by the hon member for Ermelo—it would constitute definite advantages. It would retain the presumption in clause 2 within the structure of the legal presumption of paternity but would, on the other hand, not obviate the entire problem as regards the presumption of lack of credibility created by clause 2 which in our opinion is unacceptable.

Mr Chairman, the Bill has been discussed in so much detail that little must remain for me to say. It reminds me of many years ago when I attempted to bring home to first-year students with great care and dedication the importance of impartiality and neutrality in the person occupying the Bench.

I referred them to the verdict of an eminent judge, in which he said:

Subsequently I asked students in a test to tell me a little about the attitude of a judge when appearing in court. The answer I received was:

The tale has a sequel because, as befits a good lecturer, I told the same story the following year but added what had happened involving a “well-known student”, as I have said. As is customary I again put the same question in the test, and the answer on what the judge’s attitude should be was quite right, but the student prefaced this with “as a well-known fool once said”. I hope I do not cloud the issue by the dust of my vision tonight.

I wish to make a single comment on clauses 4—which has now been omitted—and 2, which was queried by hon members. As I hope to indicate after the adjournment, one is always involved in finding solutions to difficult ethical questions.

One of the ethical questions facing us is whose duty it should be to maintain an extramarital child. The current finding in common law and as our law stands today is that such a child should be maintained by his father and also his mother’s relatives. The original proposal was that the obligation to maintain should be extended to the father’s relatives. It is true, however, that the duty to maintain usually goes hand-in-hand with a position of authority and the argument was raised that, if the father or his relatives had no authority over that extramarital child, it would be unfair to saddle him with an obligation to maintain.

Not for a moment do I wish to claim that this specific view is the final answer to the ethical question. Ethical conclusions and opinions and the view as to what is right and fair vary from time to time and should be scrutinised continuously; therefore this will have to be examined again in future.

As regards clause 2 I should like to refer to the hon member for Losberg’s standpoint that we are dealing with a burden of lack of credibility here. [Interjections.] A presumption created in a law operates on the principle that the judge receives instructions, if a certain fact is proved, to deduce a further fact from it and to accept it as correct until the contrary is proved.

In this case it is said that, if it is adduced in evidence before the court that the person concerned refuses to submit to a blood test, it is accepted that this is aimed at concealing the truth until the contrary is proved. Nevertheless a man may wish to conceal the truth for many reasons and not necessarily only on the grounds of his being the father of that child—as the Official Opposition argued.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, after such a calm and convivial adjournment one is perhaps not inclined to speak in the least aggressively about matters which in any case are not of a political nature. One may even succumb slightly to the temptation of being too convivial—about certain suggestions made by hon members of the Opposition as well.

This calls to mind a judge who had a very convivial nature. He was assisted by two assessors in a murder trial and at the end of the trial the two assessors differed radically with one another. One claimed the accused was guilty and gave his reasons; the other said he was innocent and gave his reasons. In order not to offend anyone, the judge then said: “I find the accused guilty, as my learned friend on my left feels—and for the reasons put forward by my learned friend on my right.” [Interjections.]

I should like to point out a few aspects which I consider important to this House. These are aspects regarding juridical reform in general because we are involved in legislation here which pre-eminently illustrates the entire process of juridical reform. I wish to state that there is much to be learned from the process of juridical reform about reform in general.

We are dealing basically with three different stimuli here which may give rise to juridical reform. I have already referred to clauses 1 and 2, the gist of which is a jurisprudential manipulation of the law in operation. The crux of the matter here is therefore a refinement of the legal system, the smoother operation of this system and its more logical development.

We also have a clause, however, dealing with a situation which has been unknown to the community up to the present. I am referring to arrangements which are made as regards artificial insemination, something previously unknown in legal history.

In the third instance we are involved with a set of rules intended to change the entire position of the extra-marital child. In that case we are dealing with rules we wish to alter because we have developed other perceptions and views on what is right and fair. This causes the words of the great German jurist Rudolph Sohm to spring to mind:

What he is holding up to us is that part of reality and the realities around us and whatever matters the law has to make certain arrangements about, but at the same time something of the godlike too and of the higher values and aspirations of people and what they regard highly, are embodied in the law and reflected by it. When we examine legal development in general, those two specific aspects, apart from the jurisprudential manipulation of the law, are of cardinal importance.

Consequently when we examine something like artificial insemination, we cannot sit back and think that we have, here and now, obtained final answers to all the questions. Science is going to progress even further; conditions are going to change even more; new circumstances are going to arise and the law is going to be called in to find answers to those new situations.

My plea is therefore that the Law Commission or the department itself should closely monitor these arrangements which are now being made as regards artificial insemination and its consequences and, where necessary, come up with new measures and new adjustments.

As regards the position of the extramarital child, to my mind we have a splendid example of other views, of more profound ethical insight which has gradually developed.

I should like to refer you to what the great Dutch jurist Pitlo said:

When this Dutch jurist regards the ethical so highly as a stimulus in the development of the law, we have to realise that as regards the law—but also reform in general—the question should constantly be asked: Is what I am doing fair? Are my actions correct? This should be asked…

May I ask the hon member whether, if this artificial insemination were to take place in an incubator, the hon member would say the incubator was the father and mother of the child? Or would the hon member claim that the people who had donated the gametes were the father and mother of the child? [Interjections.]

That is a technical question of which I am not even sure that I understand all the implications.

What I do wish to say is that as new and difficult situations come to the fore—like the probability the hon member has just mentioned—we shall have to re-examine the situation.

… but in jurisprudence?

Our law therefore has to keep pace with the demands of reality.

I wish to add to this and say in conclusion that not only the law—I believe this is the lesson the jurist may also disseminate in a wider sphere—should keep pace with the demands of reality. This should also occur on a broad front when the community wants to be kept on an even keel, where we have to view the reality of socioeconomic circumstances and also the opinions prevailing in a specific community at a specific time.

I therefore cannot close by saying that what was fit and proper and fair in the circumstances of 10 and 20 years ago remains fit and proper and fair today. In fact I want to say that what was fit and proper and fair yesterday does not necessarily remain fit and proper and fair today.

Mr Chairman, whereas you are usually the Chairman of Committees but are now in the Chair, I do not know exactly how to address you. Pardon me for becoming confused when you occupy different chairs. [Interjections.]

I think the arguments we heard on this most interesting subject this afternoon and this evening actually emphasise the need which existed for the Law Commission to undertake this task. While providing legal certainty on the one hand, we also attempted on the other to act fairly and justly toward children. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into all the technical points raised here today. There are for example the complexities which may arise if a woman is artificially inseminated with the gametes of a specific donor and ultimately becomes the mother of her own grandchildren. That complexity falls rather humorously on the ear but is of such a nature that in my opinion we are not called upon to pay attention to it tonight—neither does the Bill purport to deal with it. That is, to begin with, my reply to the hon member for Bethal.

The Bill does not purport to deal with anything other than the situation in which a woman is artificially inseminated either outside her body or in some other artificial way. The crux of the matter is whether consent has been obtained from her and her spouse. The hon member’s argument contains an inherent fiction, ie that with the consent of the spouse, the man in the partnership, a fictitious adopter can be created. On the part of the donor again the fiction lies in his consent that his sperm be used. The hon member pursued that line of argument throughout, so he agrees with me.

This is so logical. If the hon member proceeds from the standpoint that an adopted child has to fit in completely with his adoptive parents, that he has to be assimilated into the milieu of the adoptive parents for the sake of suitability and legal certainty as well as for social reasons, he should extend it consistently to the sperm which serves the purpose of giving a married couple, who are perhaps unable to have their own children or who may not be able to have them in the normal way, a child.

The point I wish to make to the hon member is therefore that, if he wishes to argue logically or consistently, he simply has to accept that fictitious consent to adoption may be created in the action of the donor. [Interjections.] Nevertheless I should first like to deal with the easier problem, which was pointed out by the hon member for Sandton.

†The hon member wanted to know why clause 4 of the original Bill had been omitted. I can advance various reasons. First of all, the powers of persuasion which the hon member commanded in his younger days have deserted him. [Interjections.] He failed to persuade the rest of the standing committee to share his point of view with regard to what he called a logical situation. He failed to do that, Sir, and it is a pity, for I can understand the line of his argument.

The hon member argued that the relatives of the male should have a share in the responsibility for the result of the wild oats he had sown, if I may put it that way. [Interjections.] It could be interpreted in that way. Thirdly, the committee system worked and by majority vote of the representatives of the three Houses it was decided not to pass that clause. The hon member may say that it was not fair or logical and we had the opportunity to do the right thing. Perhaps I might agree with him in the context of the logical sequence of events but we have not deprived anyone of a right. The issue is that never before had there been the situation that male relatives had to maintain an extramarital child from that particular…

Union.

… union. Thank you. In other words, we are not depriving anyone of any right. What we have actually done and what the committee has done is to recommend that the issue be referred to the Law Commission for further investigation and for the commission to report back in due course. Therefore, it has not been abandoned altogether and the hon member may have another opportunity, another bite at the cherry so to speak, to try to persuade the balance of the committee members. That is also my reply to the hon member for Randburg and concludes my remarks with regard to those clauses.

*This brings me to clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. The hon members for Ermelo, Bethal and Losberg argued the matter, but especially the hon members for Ermelo and Losberg. I want to say at once that I wish to examine the hon member for Ermelo’s argument because he proceeds from the standpoint… Mr Chairman, if hon frontbenchers on this side of the House would only give me the opportunity of arguing with hon members on the opposite side, I would be happy. The fact remains that the hon member for Ermelo might have a valid argument and I want to examine its legal effect. Against whom can the presumption which may arise in the case of refusal to submit to a blood test be used? Normally a person would want to see this in operation against the mother. Normally one would like to see that it was possible to persuade the mother to submit to the blood test but, if the mother simply disregarded this presumption, one could say that the matter should be re-examined.

Hon members should analyse the system now, however. The mother is under the guardianship of her natural guardian; surely that is logical. It therefore seems to me that one could also argue that the natural guardian would have an interest in the right father being indicated. Consequently that presumption could operate against the guardian in question if the consent were not exercised properly. It therefore seems to me that it could also be an encouragement of the guardian in practice because the question of the obligation of maintenance is then at issue here. If one extends this straight through, the total burden of maintenance and other responsibilities would rest on the minor mother and her guardian if paternity were not proved. In consequence I find it logical for that presumption to have a specific legal effect too and it should therefore be dealt with accordingly.

Hon members argued throughout as if this presumption were being instituted to create a crisis of credibility. That is not the case and we could argue it ad infinitum but the House is in a mood to conclude its business. I therefore want to say to the hon member that the Law Commission in no way saw it as a desire on its part to create a credibility crisis here. The object of its recommendation may be found in paragraph 7. 44:

What is the position? In earlier years blood tests were not available and then two presumptions were employed. What were they? It was the well-known old maxim of pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant.

The other presumption was that, once intercourse had been admitted to, regardless of when it took place—it could even have been outside the possible period of conception; I think the term “period of gestation” is used—the onus of rebuttal passed to the male party involved. The situation was that he could be relieved of that burden of proof only if for instance he could plead sterility—in this respect I am referring to the case of Swart—or if he were to allege he had been overseas. The latter defence was put forward in the same case.

In the light of all these aspects in which medical and modern science—I have heard my hon colleagues calling it biotechnical development here—enable us to state what the facts indicate, we no longer need to employ those presumptions. We can now use blood tests. A man accused of paternity may for example make use of the convenience blood tests afford.

To encourage all the parties, Sir, we are creating these presumptions. On the one hand it is important for the woman to have the matter disposed of, as it is for the man on the other. That is the background but I want to repeat that there may possibly be something in the hon member for Ermelo’s point. We shall have to examine its possible legal effect. I could see by his eyes, however, that he had not considered the possibility either that it might be in the interests of the guardian for that presumption to be valid.

No, no, Mr Chairman. May I put a question to the hon the Minister, since I think this is the basis of the problem? The presumption can never work against the parent; it can never work against that parent because he is the child’s guardian. [Interjections.] He is not mentioned in the Act either. The presumption only works against…

Order!

… or does the hon the Minister not agree?

Order! No matter how the hon member attempts to present the matter, it is not a question. [Interjections.]

Sir, my question to the hon the Minister is whether he agrees that the presumption can only work against the unmarried mother if she is the guardian. While she is a minor she cannot be a guardian in terms of section 3. Does the hon the Minister agree?

Sir, I indicated that we would make a legal analysis of this matter and establish whether the hon member has a valid point. The interpretation of this may, however, be contained in clause 2 which reads as follows:

Remember “parental authority” will then include the guardianship over the minor girl and consequently over her child as well—

Sir, my deduction is that the presumption may well work here against that person who is in a position of parental authority as regards the grandchild where the case in question is that of a minor girl. We shall examine this possibility. If it is not so, the hon member may have a valid point.

I nevertheless contend that he has disregarded the fact that it would be in the interests of a person exercising guardianship over a minor girl and her extramarital child that blood tests be carried out in regard to the matter of paternity. Surely that is logical because the question involved here is a duty to maintenance. It seems logical to me that this could be an element but we shall look into it.

This brings me to clause 5. I think the hon member for Bethal tried to take his proposal and the arguments he put forward in the Committee further here tonight. I think, however, the hon member should take into account the fact that we are not trying to cover the matter of surrogate motherhood in this Bill at all. No attempt whatsoever is being made in this regard. What we are in fact dealing with here is the conception of a child in a manner other than the normal—which occurs with outside aid or some other form of assistance as the hon member for Port Elizabeth North said—an artificial procreation, whether in the mother or…

Order! Would hon members please lower their voices.

… outside the mother, but a transplant which takes place in such a way that the mother gives birth. When this occurs with the consent of the husband, specific legal consequences ensue for that child—that he is accepted and described as a legitimate child born in wedlock. All uncertainty before the law is being eliminated.

It is proposed in the clause that this be taken so far and no further. If one looks at the relevant legislation which deals with the transplant of tissue and so on, and the consequent regulations, one will see that the question of surrogate motherhood is not at issue in the regulations at all.

This afternoon I could detect that hon members were very inclined to deal with the matter of the grandmother who acted as a surrogate mother for her children. If we have to make this applicable to them, however, this provision would mean that the grandmother would be the legal mother of that child. All links with the gametes would be broken; those are the legal consequences. A further legal consequence is that, if they wish to make that child, which was created by the union of their gametes, their own—this is the present position—they have to adopt him. This is in accordance with the hon member’s argument. He is nodding his head; he therefore agrees, and I fail to understand his objection. If he agrees with this, he should support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? Is it not possible to legalise that adoption in this legislation? Surely there are explicit provisions that a person is not permitted to adopt one’s own biological child unless a law is passed empowering this. This child is the biological issue of those two, therefore they cannot adopt him.

The fact remains that according to this legislation all ties are being severed. Wherever they may appear therefore, whether in common law or in the Children’s Act, those ties have been severed. The rule the hon member is referring to now, if it has ever existed, is being repealed by this measure because that child adopts the status of the mother who gave birth naturally. That is the reply and it is simple. I think the hon member understands it.

Now for the point that hon members do not support the Bill for legal-technical reasons. I want to tell them that their points of departure reflected a specific drift which did not have much to do with this matter. As the subject developed and the day for the debate approached, those hon members realised they were in trouble. How is one to fathom them? They appear to have no sympathy with children in this position. [Interjections.] They do not care a jot for justice and equity and for all the matters raised by the hon member for Sundays River and which gave rise to reform and adjustment of the law. [Interjections.] Back to the Middle Ages! That is where we stand with hon members of the Official Opposition. It is a sorry day when hon members of the Official Opposition do not have the courage of their convictions to come forward and say that they did not understand the position yesterday but that their eyes have now been opened and they now support the measure, but to come up with this childish argument that they cannot support it for legal-technical reasons is totally unacceptable to the whole of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I wish to say that I have not mentioned hon members on this side by name but you will agree that each made a brilliant contribution.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—105: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Brazelle, J A; Burrows, R M; Chait, E J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cronjé, P C; Cunningham, J H; Dalling, D J; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; Delport, J T; Du Plessis, P T C; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Ellis, M J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Gastrow, P H P; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, TAP; Lemmer, J J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malcomess, D J N; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meyer, A T; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, N J J; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Schwarz, H H; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Soal, P G; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel. J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Swart, RAF; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Vilonel, J J; Walsh, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Jordaan, A L; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Maree, M D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

Noes—15: Beyers, J M; Coetzee, H J; De Jager. C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Hartzenberg. F; Mentz, M J; Nolte. D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, WJD.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Schoeman, C B.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, during its investigation into the functioning of each of the various schemes introduced in terms of the Marketing Act, the National Marketing Council also reviewed the position of the South African Canned Fruit Export Board with a view to rationalising that board and the Canning Fruit Board. The former board was established under the Canned Fruit Export Marketing Act, 1967, whereas the latter board was established under the scheme for canning fruit in terms of the Marketing Act. The position therefore is that there are two Acts for the same product in the same market, which are administered by two Ministries and two departments.

After they had taken the relevant factors into consideration, the National Marketing Council recommended that the administrations of the two boards be combined, and that the Canned Fruit Export Marketing Act be repealed. It was also recommended that only one agricultural marketing board should be established for canned fruit in terms of the Marketing Act.

The proposals were agreed to by both boards, and the former Minister of Trade and Industry gave his consent. The envisaged rationalisation of the two boards was also supported by the deciduous fruit producers.

The existing clause 20 only provides for the repeal of the Livestock and Meat Industries Act. The provisions must be extended… [Interjections.]

Order! Which hon members are conversing so loudly? [Interjections.] Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

The provisions are being extended to provide for the repeal of Act 100 of 1967 as well. I therefore move that the clause be negatived.

Mr Chairman, we on this side merely want to say that this is a logical and useful change to the present state of affairs. It is virtually incomprehensible how we could have had two boards to serve the same industry. We think it is in the interests of the relevant industry to negative this clause.

Mr Chairman, I support the negativing of the clause on behalf of the PFP. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the Committee we should like to thank the hon members for Barberton and Greytown for their support for this very logical consequence of the investigation of the National Marketing Council. I take pleasure in supporting the negativing of the clause.

Clause negatived.

New clause to follow clause 19:

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

1. 20.
   1. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2), (3) and (4) the laws specified in the Schedule are hereby repealed to the extent set out in the third column of that Schedule.
   2. (2) On the date of commencement of this section—
      1. (a) all the assets, liabilities, rights and obligations of the South African Canned Fruit Export Board referred to in section 2 of the Canned Fruit Export Marketing Act, 1967 (Act No. 100 of 1967), shall vest in the Canning Fruit Board established under section 25 of the Marketing Act, 1968 (Act No. 59 of 1968); and
      2. (b) any person who immediately before the said date was in the employment of the said South African Canned Fruit Export Board, shall become an employee of the said Canning Fruit Board.
   3. (3)
      1. (a) Any service with the said South African Canned Fruit Export Board of any person who in terms of subsection (2)(b) becomes an employee of the said Canning Fruit Board, shall for all purposes be deemed to be service with the said Canning Fruit Board, and any leave which may have accrued in favour of any such person while he was in the employment of the South African Canned Fruit Export Board shall be deemed to have accrued in his favour by virtue of service with the said Canning Fruit Board.
      2. (b) The salary of any person who so becomes an employee of the said Canning Fruit Board shall not without his permission be reduced solely because of the provisions of this section, except if it is done in pursuance of disciplinary measures applied by the Canning Fruit Board against him.
   4. (4) As from the date of commencement of this section anything done by the said South African Canned Fruit Export Board under any provision of a law repealed by this section, shall be deemed to have been done by the said Canning Fruit Board under the corresponding provision of the Canning Fruit Scheme established under section 14(1) of the Marketing Act, 1968.

New Clause agreed to.

Schedule:

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

Schedule

LAWS REPEALED (Section 20)

Schedule agreed to.

Title:

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

1. 1. On page 2, in the eleventh line, after “1934” to insert:
   , and the Canned Fruit Export Marketing Act, 1967

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

(Mr K D S Durr): Mr Chairman, I move:

Copies of the draft Bill and the explanatory notes have as usual been made available beforehand to certain hon members of the three Houses of Parliament in order to enable them to study the content before the Bill is tabled.

In accordance with standing practice the proposed amendments were submitted to representative bodies of commerce and industry such as the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Federated Chamber of Industries, Assocom and the SA Association of Freight Forwarders for comment. The amendments relating to the fuel levy were not made available in the same manner. The reason is that it was not practicable owing to the time factor. It should be noted, however, that these amendments are mainly adjustments to existing statutory principles.

The amendments to the schedules to the Customs and Excise Act which were published in the Gazette until 15 May 1987 have been bound in book form and, together with the explanatory notes, have been laid upon the Table in the form of a White Paper. The amendments to Schedules 1, 5 and 6 to the Act which are consequential to the imposition of the fuel levy and the introduction of the refund system, have respectively been included in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to this Bill.

The Bill provides mainly for the collection and refunding of the fuel levy; new control measures relating to the export of goods subject to duty; the increase in the value of goods which may be imported without the normal customs entry; the deferment of payment of duty on entry for importation; the extension of the period for substitution of incorrect bills of entry to obtain refunds of duty; the granting of authority to issue rebate permits with retrospective effect; a discretionary power to the Commissioner to do away with the requirements of rebate registration; and powers to amend the schedules as a result of the change-over to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. There are also other less important amendments which may be of interest to certain members and I shall also refer briefly thereto.

Since the imposition of the fuel levy there has been considerable comment, often unfavourable, on the system of refunds which has been introduced on behalf of concessional users of diesel. However, there were also other persons who commended the desirability of such a system from the start. The Margo Commission in fact recommended such a system. I do not wish to elaborate upon the previous system except to say that because of anomalies there were many opportunities for and much encouragement of malpractices. This does not apply only in respect of the eventual end-user, but also intermediaries who gained access to the diesel concerned. Hon members also know that tax which is avoided by dishonest persons must eventually be paid by the honest taxpayers. The old system was so susceptible to abuse that it lead to many malpractices, for example, the purchase of farms or small bus services by transport companies in order to obtain rebate of diesel. I should like to mention that the Margo Commission indicated that the expenditure of Government institutions should be funded by means of the Budget and not by employing concessions in the tax system. Rebates should furthermore not be used to put Government bodies in a more favourable competitive position than the private sector. It may be interesting to note that a similar system is in operation in Australia.

Because of the consolidation of the levies and the sales tax in a single levy the new system also results in precise and accurate collection.

Regarding the refunds to concessional users, Customs and Excise has already posted refunds within the time projected. Here I should like to express my appreciation for the sacrifices by the Commissioner’s staff to develop and implement a simple system at short notice. Many evenings and weekends were spent to get the system in operation in the time available for the convenience of concessional users.

†As the proposed amendments embodied in the Bill are extensive and deal with many, in some instances, technical aspects of customs and excise administration I shall not refer to all the clauses, but I shall draw attention only to those amendments which I consider may be of particular interest to members.

Clause 1 provides not only for new definitions and the amendment of definitions but also for the amendment of subsection (3) of section 1 of the principal Act. The purpose of this amendment is to exclude the fuel levy from the common revenue pool referred to in the relevant customs union agreement. The intention is that each member country should administer the fuel levy in its own territory, and it is therefore correct that the levy should not form part of the common revenue pool.

In clause 2, section 4 is amended in order to allow disclosure of information to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. The purpose is to promote co-operation and hence greater efficiency in the detection and investigation of tax and duty evasion. Similar provisions will be made in the legislation of inland revenue. However, other than this, the secrecy requirements embodied in the respective laws will be maintained.

Clause 8 amends section 37 in order to broaden the scope of provisions allowing the reconditioning, mixing or blending of fuel levy goods. The need for these amendments arises from the particular requirements of the oil industry relating to the mixing of petrol and spirits as well as specific preparations of distillate fuels. Such operations are subject to the approval of the Commissioner and the proposed subsection (9) contains a prohibition against the reconditioning, mixing or blending of fuel levy goods otherwise than provided in the section.

Clause 10, which amends section 39 of the principal Act, empowers the Commissioner to allow deferment of payment of duty on entering imported goods with effect from 1 January 1987. Before this facility duty had to be paid at the time of entry. This concession has been created at the request of importers and clearing agents.

Clause 11, which amends section 40, is a further concession in that the time within which to amend a bill of entry in respect of which duty has been paid in error is extended from three to six months. This request was submitted by clearing agents and benefits importers to the extent that a longer period is now allowed within which to apply for a refund where duty has been paid in error on goods intended for rebate or storage in a customs and excise warehouse.

Clause 14 provides for the insertion of section 44A which refers to joint and several liability where liability for duty or an amount demanded as forfeiture devolves on two or more persons. This section relates to the provisions of, for example, section 44 (8) where liability for duty devolves on the manufacturer, owner, seller or purchaser.

Clause 17 inserts section 47B in terms of which the Commissioner will dispose of fuel levy as determined jointly by the Minister of Finance and any other Minister who may lay claim thereto by virtue of any other law. This provision in effect authorises payments to such funds as the Central Energy Fund and the National Road Fund.

Hon members should please note the provisions of clause 19 containing the proposed new section 48A. This section empowers the Minister, after consultation with the Board of Trade and Industry, to amend any schedule to the principal Act if it differs from any similar provision in force immediately prior to 1 January 1988 if the difference is to the detriment of any importer or manufacturer and was not so intended. This amendment should be read with the provisions of clause 43 under which the Minister is empowered to amend any schedule to the principal Act, including the notes thereto, in order to provide for the application of the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. In this regard I wish to explain that the South African customs tariff is presently based upon the international nomenclature which was designed by the Customs Co-operation Council in Brussels and which was adopted by 97 countries by means of international convention. The Customs Co-operation Council has redesigned the nomenclature to also extend its scope to fields other than customs administration, and the Republic is committed to transposing its own tariff to the new format by 1 January 1988.

There are many changes which have to be taken into consideration and it is of paramount importance in the interests of South African importers, particularly those who are part of the industrial sector, that the scope of existing duty provisions should not be disturbed by the process of transposition to the new format. As this is a highly complex task which should cater for every article or commodity which may be encountered in the import trade, it is inevitable that it may be found, after implementation of the transposed tariff, that certain duty provisions have inadvertently not been maintained. To protect the interests of importers who are affected by such inadvertent departures from the existing tariff structure, it is necessary that the Minister should, for at least one year after implementation, be in a position to rectify the situation upon recommendation by the Board of Trade and Industry.

South Africa will therefore, together with many of its most important trading partners, be a party to an international project to harmonise numerous coding systems to facilitate trade.

I now wish to refer hon members to clause 23 which proposes the amendment of section 75 of the principal Act. This section is to be amended substantially to provide, inter alia, for refunds of duty and fuel levy as may be specified in Schedules 5 and 6 as well as related provisions regarding administrative requirements, the powers of the Commissioner and the rights and duties of applicants for refunds. The following is a brief survey of what are considered to be the most important provisions:

1. (a) The provisions in respect of refunds do not apply, inter alia, to any government or department or any regional or local authority except as provided in the notes to Schedule 5 or 6.
2. (b) The Commissioner is empowered to investigate purchases and uses of diesel.
3. (c) The Commissioner may make payments of fuel levy to other administrations for the purpose of paying refunds of fuel levy. This authority is necessary in order to make payments available to the administration of South West Africa.
4. (d) Applicants for refunds must be registered as users.
5. (e) Users are required to keep proper books, accounts and documents relating to the use of the diesel in respect of which refunds are claimed.
6. (f) If a person fails to produce such books, accounts and documents, he incurs the liability to repay refunds received or such portion thereof as the Commissioner may determine during a period of two years.
7. (g) The Commissioner may refuse to register a user or cancel his registration.
8. (h) In the proposed new subsection (7A) it is provided that any person who disposes of fuel in respect of which he has claimed a refund, or applies the fuel for any other purpose or use as declared in his application for refund, is liable to repay refunds granted or any portion thereof as the Commissioner may determine, over a period of two years. Such an act will also be a specific offence as provided in the proposed amendment to section 80 (1) (o).
9. (i) The proposed amendment to subsection (10) is an important concession to rebate manufacturers or potential manufacturers. In a proviso to the subsection, the Commissioner is empowered to exempt a person with or without retrospective effect from the peremptory provisions of the subsection in relation, inter alia, to registration and the furnishing of security.
10. (j) The provisions of the proposed new subsection (14B) will facilitate entry under rebate by allowing permits to be issued with or without retrospective effect for the purpose of authorising entry of goods under rebate of duty in accordance with the provisions of any item of Schedules 3, 4, 5 and 6.
11. (k) The proposed new subsection (15) (aA) further extends the scope of the provisions allowing notices in the Gazette to be published with retrospective effect. Schedules 3, 4, 5 and 6 may now be amended with retrospective effect in either the same notice or by means of a subsequent notice.

The proposed insertion of section 76A is embodied in clause 25, and makes provision for the recovery of amounts refunded in error.

*Hon members will also note the provisions of clause 27 which contains the proposed amendment of section 80. In addition to the provision which is made for certain specific offences, the proposed subsection (3) provides that any person who is charged under section 80 (1) (j) is presumed to have known, until the contrary is proved, that he was not entitled to the rebate, drawback, refund or payment concerned.

The proposed amendment of section 88 as contained in clause 28 includes the provision that the export value of goods may be claimed if such goods cannot be found. It is further provided that the value for duty purposes is calculated in terms of the relevant provisions in the Act whether or not the goods concerned are subject to ad valorem duty or to a duty calculated according to a unit of quantity, volume or other measurement.

I should also like to draw the attention of hon members to the amendment of section 114 as contained in clause 32. The amendment is intended to make it clear that a lien may be placed on goods in respect of the correct amount of duty for which any person is liable from the date on which liability for such duty commences.

In addition to the insertion of references to fuel levy, the reference to dutiable fuel is replaced for the sake of clarity to refer to fuel in respect of which any duty is prescribed—whether or not such duty has been paid. A lien may therefore be placed on vehicles, machinery, plant or equipment in which such fuel is used, transported or stored.

The attention of hon members is further drawn to clause 36 which enumerates a number of clauses in the Bill which are deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 1987. The clauses referred to all relate to sections of the principal Act which have been amended as a result of the imposition of the fuel levy.

†Clause 37 provides for the commencement of certain Government Notices while clause 38 provides for the application of section 40 of the principal Act in relation to certain goods.

Clause 39 provides for the continuation of the amendments of Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 published in the Gazette under section 48 (1) and (2), section 56 (1) and 56 (1A) or section 75 (15) of the principal Act prior to 15 May 1987.

Clause 40 repeals certain Government Notices relating to the amendments of Schedules 5 and 6 as a result of the imposition of the fuel levy. Schedules 1, 5 and 6 to the principal Act are now amended as provided in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the Bill.

The relevant schedules provide retrospectively for the fuel levy payable in terms of Part 5 of Schedule 1 and the refunds of duty and fuel levy specified in Schedules 5 and 6 of the principal Act. These Schedules are deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 1987.

Clause 41 relates to the amendment of the long title to provide for the fuel levy.

Clause 42 is a necessary amendment to determine the status for customs purposes of fuel levy goods removed between the Republic and other member countries of the Customs Union while the latter have not yet imposed the fuel levy. These goods are meanwhile being treated as exports and imports, as the case may be, until the countries impose the fuel levy.

Clause 43 empowers the Minister at any time to amend any Schedule to the principal Act, including the notes thereto, in order to provide for the application in the Republic of the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System referred to in my remarks on clause 19.

Mr Chairman, permit me right at the outset to express our thanks to the department for having made the Bill available to us at an early stage—at the time it was not yet in printed form, but in roneoed form—and for the accompanying explanatory memorandum. We want to convey our sincere thanks to them for doing so, because we are dealing here chiefly with matters that are rather technical for the ordinary man, and it would have been somewhat difficult to understand exactly what this was all about without the explanatory memorandum.

Permit me to make a few remarks about the importance of customs and excise in general and about how the position affects us at present, with special reference to our toll union partners, the BLS countries and the TBVC countries.

It has been some years now that we have been asking that consideration be given to the sharing out of the cake, because year after year it seems to us that despite the increase in the revenue from customs and excise, the share retained by us after payments to the BLS countries and the TBVC countries does not increase in proportion to the increase in revenue.

I want to mention an example to hon members. In the 1986-87 financial year the revenue from customs and excise was, according to the final figure, R4 118 million, of which we retained R2 520 million for the Republic. In this year’s Budget revenue of R4 500 million is being budgeted for, but after provision has been made for the payment to those countries, we shall retain a mere R2 620 million for the Republic.

While the general revenue of the toll union region from this source of revenue is increasing by only 12%, the share of the BLS countries and the TBVC countries is increasing by 22,6%. But that is not all. The share that the Republic retains for itself after the payment—while the increase in revenue for the whole area is increasing by 12%—represents an increase of a mere 4%. If we wish to subsidise the BLS countries and the TBVC countries, let us do so openly and quantify the figures. I cannot but infer that in this instance we are dealing with a subsidy without our calling it that. I simply cannot understand how it is that out of an appropriated sum of R4 500 million, an appropriated sum of R1 880 million is allocated to those countries. Therefore we want to appeal to the Government, for the umpteenth time, to give attention to this matter once and for all.

I take it they are sensitive. At one stage—I am speaking under correction now—it was intimated that negotiations were in progress. If I remember correctly, the hon the Minister of Finance gave us the assurance two year’s ago that negotiations were in progress. Finality should really be reached on this matter now, one way or the other. If we want to subsidise these people the Government must approach this Parliament and say they are subsidising those countries. However, we must not do so in an indirect way.

Most of the Bill before us is acceptable, yet since we are no longer able to make as much use of the Committee Stage, we as an opposition party are compelled, if certain provisions in a Bill do not meet with our approval, to oppose the Bill as a whole. This evening, therefore, I wish to address those colleagues, particularly in the NP, who represent agricultural constituencies. I want to ask them, when they vote on this Bill this evening, whether they have taken particular note of the provisions of clause 23 of this Bill. I am now referring specifically to the rules introduced by this Bill and the requirements the agriculturist must comply with if he is to claim a repayment of the fuel levy.

When, in July, we were told that the department was now compelled to take steps to stop the evasion or abuse of the fuel levy exemption, we said that we were satisfied. We did not want crooks to abuse concessions granted to certain industries, and agriculture in particular. However, we asked that the methods used should be reasonable and should be in line with practical realities as we know them.

We understood that there was a certain committee that was to negotiate on how this matter would be dealt with in practice, particularly in so far as it affected farmers. I do not know what the committee achieved…

I shall tell you!

… but if what appears in this Bill is the result of what that committee achieved, may Heaven preserve us from such committees in the future. [Interjections.]

Does Oom Cas have certain ideas or suggestions at this point?

Oh please, I think that that farmer from Benoni should keep out of these matters. [Interjections.]

What do the provisions of this Bill include? It now vests in the executive the power to make certain regulations. I just wish to quote one provision to hon members. It is stated in the proposed subsection (4A)(c) of section 75 as proposed to be amended by clause 23 that:

In this instance, the farmer as well—

We asked the officials what would appear in those regulations. They quite rightly told us that those regulations would only be drawn up after the Bill had become law.

After all, one does not draw up regulations in advance.

Of course not, I know that. Here, however, we are giving a blank cheque to enable regulations to be drawn up…

That is not true!

… within the framework of the law, which will require of the farmer—my fellow farmers on the other side of the House must now say how they are going to explain this to their fellow farmers—that besides those he keeps for income-tax purposes and for his private purposes, the farmer must also keep a proper set of books. The farmer is now being expected to keep book of every piece of machinery he uses… [Interjections.]

He has to do that in the normal course of events.

That is correct.

… that will use diesel, of every pump…

That is correct.

That hon Deputy Minister says it is correct…

I have already condemned that.

The hon the Minister need not interrupt me by shouting; please give me a chance to make my speech. [Interjections.]

What I find very interesting—I put the following point to my fellow farmers as practical farmers—is that if one takes one’s maize to the co-operative to sell it, one cannot claim repayment for that diesel that one uses for the truck or the trailer, because that is part of one’s marketing costs and not part of one’s production costs.

If one sends that truck into town with the load of maize, one has to pay the full fuel levy on the diesel one uses from one’s farm to the co-operative. But if that truck returns from town with a load of fertiliser, one can claim because that is part of one’s production costs. [Interjections.]

Now one has to keep a logbook to be able to tell the authorities that one has used so many litres of diesel from one’s farm to the town to deliver one’s maize, and one is claiming nothing for it. From town back to the farm, however, one has used so many litres of diesel for one’s truck, on which one can in fact claim.

Now I ask hon members as fellow farmers how many of them have a meter on their tanks of diesel on the farm for use when they fill up their truck.

I have.

Does that hon member have one? However, I am speaking about all his fellow farmers. How many of them have a meter at the diesel tank so that they can determine precisely how much diesel they put into the truck, the van and their tractors respectively?

Moreover the majority of us—perhaps the NP members opposite are better off than we are—have unsophisticated labourers who work with that machinery and have to fill the fuel tanks. Will such a farmer keep a logbook for his tank of diesel on the farm?

Do you want to tell me you do not keep a logbook?

Of course not. [Interjections.] The hon member is welcome to feel happy this evening… This matter will get sorted out in practice. The hon members on the NP side, those of them who represent farming constituencies, will have to explain to the farmers why they voted in favour of this provision, when as a result of this, farmers are going to get into trouble.

They do not understand this business any more. [Interjections.]

Furthermore it is being provided, as the hon the Minister explained, that if the farmers have not kept those books and records as the regulations are going to require them to do, they will be investigated. Therefore that provision means that such farmers will have to repay every levy paid to them for the previous two years. [Interjections.]

They will!

For the preceding two years?

It may be so, yes!

If the hon member for Heilbron knew the Receiver of Revenue as well as I know him, he would know that “may” when it appears in a law, becomes “shall”. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon member for Heilbron should tell me whether he is going to defend these provisions in Heilbron.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Barberton what system he prefers? Does he prefer this system or does he prefer a system in accordance with which he would have to pay 7,7 cents per litre more for the diesel in order to make up for the losses?

Oh really, Sir. [Interjections.] Apparently there are many hon members present who are prepared to answer the question on my behalf. I do not know why the hon member puts that question to me.

How many crooks have they caught? [Interjections.]

Sir, I merely warn that they must not allow the crooks to get away.

They have not caught one!

The steps we are taking should really take the realities of the times into account.

I know my farmers, and I know how this matter is going to develop in practice. That is why I address my warning.

Finally, I should like to know something about this committee of which we have heard so much. I understand that that committee that investigated these matters did so under the leadership of an NP MP. Is this Bill something that they are responsible for? Or did the hon the Minister and his department see fit to ignore the findings of that committee totally? I cannot believe that my fellow farmers present in this House of Assembly, inter alia the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, Mr Bartlett, are satisfied with the situation. [Interjections.] Therefore, Sir, we on this side have no alternative, as far as this particular issue is concerned, but to oppose the acceptance of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I just wish to refer briefly to what the hon member for Barberton had to say about the statistics relating to the Toll Union moneys. I do not wish to dispute the correctness of the hon member’s statistics, because I have not gone into them and I take it that he himself checked the statistics he presented. However, one important point that we must bear in mind here is that Toll Union moneys are still an important source of revenue of all the participating countries in this agreement. Therefore they must be dealt with in such a way that this will be to the reasonable advantage of all—and I say “all” advisedly—the countries. I take it that in the course of his reply the hon the Minister will come back to this matter to which the hon member for Barberton referred.

Before referring to the fuel/diesel situation—I certainly do not intend to say a great deal about it; other hon members on our side will refer to it—I just wish to deal with a few other general statements.

This measure is a most essential requirement every year. Accordingly it is also a pointer to the fact that the session is coming to an end, because the financial measures are always finalised after the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill.

I also do not wish to refer specifically to particular tariff headings as mentioned in the schedule. The recommendations in regard to the reduction or increase in these tariff headings are largely those of the Board of Trade and Industry and I just wish to say that the Board of Trade and Industry always examines representations in this regard in depth before certain recommendations are made. It is enough to say that a thorough study is made of this in advance before a decision in this regard is announced.

A second aspect that deserves attention in this Bill is the fact that it gives effect to specific arrangements referred to by the hon the Minister in his Budget speech. Before coming to that I just wish to refer to the old problem experienced in regard to the collecting of tax. This problem is as old as tax itself, namely the deliberate efforts to evade and avoid paying tax.

Taxpayers—unfortunately there are a great many of these—still try to devise methods to pay less tax, or else not to pay at all and evade it. Every year methods of evading tax are deliberately worked out. Tax evasion can be to the short-term benefit of such tax evaders. What is important, however, is that many tax evaders result in a substantial sums ultimately being lost by the Treasury at the expense of other taxpayers who then have to cough up an additional amount. Accordingly that is the reason for the provision in this measure that information may be exchanged between the two revenue departments. As a result of this measure the Department of Inland Revenue can provide available information to Customs and Excise, and of course vice versa.

This does not detract from the confidentiality clause in the existing legislation. Both are revenue collecting departments and all that is happening now is that the two departments are being enabled to exchange information without providing confidential information on the taxpayer to outside bodies.

I believe that this will help to establish a more effective system in tracing deliberate evasion of tax, and we should specifically like to support this clause.

For the rest the provisions contained in the majority of clauses deal with the co-ordinated collection of the fuel levy, to which the hon member for Barberton referred. On a previous occasion when we were discussing this matter I said that centralised collection would by its nature be more effective, to such an extent that the department would be able to collect the considerable amount that, according to estimates, was being lost.

I do not wish to elaborate on this whole matter much further because, as I said, an hon member on this side of the House will be discussing the matter further. However, I quite understand that the farmers in particular are now faced with more administrative red tape, and that many forms will have to be completed. This is true and I do not think we should try and run away from that fact.

I have examined the form, and it seems to me that it is not a very complex form to fill in. The reclaiming procedure is therefore relatively simple, but it is important that there should be no delay in sending in this form. Apparently the department itself has gone out of its way—I have checked this with the department—to accommodate the user of diesel in a reasonable way to ensure these repayments. It appears, thanks to the infrastructure created by the department, that repayments on claims can be disposed of within approximately three weeks. The department gives the assurance that this estimate is relatively accurate. This means that within three weeks after a claim has been submitted, a farmer can be in possession of his cheque. However, it is still important that the claim form be submitted with the least possible delay.

I hope that the farmer in particular will show understanding for this essential procedure so that the problems entailed by the old system can be eliminated. Let us make it a team effort—I believe this is possible—in order to establish the most effective possible system.

I wish to conclude by once again thanking our customs officials, who sometimes have to do their work in very difficult circumstances, for the understanding and sound judgment they display in the execution of their task. Sir, they sometimes have to perform their task in the most difficult circumstances. We appreciate the work they do at the various places where they are stationed. We on this side of the House should like to express our sincere thanks to them.

We take pleasure in supporting this measure as a whole.

Mr Chairman, may I start off right at the beginning by associating myself with the concluding remarks of the hon member for Gezina. I think the Commissioner and his officials should be complimented. I extend these compliments not only to the Commissioner himself, but also to the most junior of the officials in his department, because I have witnessed the kind of problems they encounter.

I should like to illustrate this, if I may. Someone comes, for example, from Hong Kong with a great big suitcase full of all sorts of electrical and other dutiable goods, and has the audacity to walk through the green light at the customs. When someone asks him whether he has anything to declare, the person indignantly says: “How can you ask me such a thing!” And, of course, when one opens the bag, one finds vast quantities of all sorts of things. Sir, what is remarkable, is the degree of restraint and politeness which is shown by the staff who, very often, are relatively young and have started the job relatively recently, under what is sometimes very great provocation from the public. I think those people should be congratulated. They should be thanked for the kind of behaviour that they demonstrate and for the repute which they add to the service of the Commissioner for Customs. [Interjections.]

This Bill, of course, is an annual event. There is a game, Sir, which is played between—if I may call it this—the crooks and the baddies on the one hand, and the goodies on the other. As fast as the Commissioner seeks to close a loophole, someone finds another loophole. Therefore, in the next year he has to close the new loophole again. It is a game. I think the Commissioner is ahead at the moment; I do not know for how long he will remain ahead though. However, it is really a problem that as soon as one closes a loophole, someone finds another one in order to bypass the law.

I want to draw attention to just one thing which I would like to talk about specifically. This Bill is like curate’s egg. I think the hon member for Barberton is correct about some of the problems which are going to arise in regard to the implementation of the fuel levy. My only difference with him is that I think the farmers of Yeoville are going to be able to cope with their bookkeeping, whereas the farmers of Barberton are going to battle. Therefore, maybe I do not have quite such strong feelings about the bookkeeping as he has. We shall manage to cope with the accounts in Yeoville. Sometimes we cope with them too well, Sir, but there is no doubt that we will deal with them.

There are some good aspects as well as bad aspects. Like the curate’s egg it is good and bad, but there is more good in it than bad. We will be voting for the measure because we cannot reject an important measure merely because there are some aspects of it with which we disagree.

I want to come to something which worries me very substantially. In this Bill we ratify certain actions, one of which—if we look on page 63 of the handbook that was so kindly provided—relates to a tariff item in respect of motor vehicles and the export thereof. I would like to see a ban imposed tomorrow on the export of all second-hand motor vehicles from South Africa, except under special permit. I think it is time that we put an end to the thieving, the robbery and the exporting under false pretences of stolen cars from South Africa. Although the Police are doing their best, I find it remarkable that containers full of motorcars can leave South Africa for all sorts of strange destinations. We have got to put and end to it. We ought to say that if someone wants to export a motorcar, he must apply for a special permit for that car. If the person is an immigrant he has certain rights under the exchange control regulations and he can receive a special permit. In the old days if one wanted to travel abroad one received a triptyque and had to furnish security that one was in fact coming back. However, something has to be done because not only are we being robbed of our cars, but the country is also being robbed of cars. I cannot understand how all of a sudden our motorcars appeared in New Zealand. There must be some major scheme whereby they get there. We have got to assist the Police as far as this is concerned.

If for instance one wants to travel to the TBVC countries, that may be difficult to stop because of the nature of the borders. If, however, one wants to go to Zimbabwe or to Botswana or somewhere else, then one has to go through procedures in order to ensure that one is in fact a bona fide traveller and not a thief taking a car out of the country.

I would like to suggest that we do this now. The hon the Minister can do it tomorrow if he wants to. He has the power to do so; he uses it for other reasons and I think this is a case where it is important to all of us that it should be used right away.

I want to deal with the question of the fuel levy and the problems referred to by the hon member for Barberton. I think there are going to be problems and that one will have to be somewhat sympathetic in the application of this measure in its initial stages until all the bugs are taken out of the system. One has to apply it in a reasonable and understanding manner in order to get it going.

On the other hand—I think this is the real issue—there is no doubt that there has been very substantial abuse in regard to the fuel levy. If the hon the Minister of Finance was correct that some R300 million will be saved for the exchequer as a result thereof, then perhaps some of us will have to put up with a little inconvenience, and some others will have to show tolerance until we get this system working adequately.

The other aspect which I think is attractive about this system is that it does away with a degree of multiplicity of individual items. It starts by taking one amount at the beginning. It enables the tax to be collected far more effectively, and I for one am all in favour of doing away with the multiplicity of indirect taxation measures which we have in South Africa. We have far too many different kinds of indirect taxes.

One of the problems that I have with Margo Commission Report—however good it is in many respects—is that it does not deal with the real problem of the multiplicity of taxes—GST, ad valorem duties, excise duties, and now the CBT and all the other bits and pieces. I think the public would be much happier if we simplified the system and did away with this multiplicity of indirect taxation measures.

I would like now to come back to a subject which I think I speak about virtually every year at this time, namely the confiscation of the assets of innocent people in terms of the customs legislation. There is another example of it in this Bill. A completely innocent person can provide a piece of machinery for a perfectly legitimate use, and because a duty is not paid in those circumstances he can lose that machinery. It has been tested in the courts, Sir, because the courts have said that the legislation is so wide that it means a completely innocent person who does not know a piece of machinery is going to be used for a wrongful purpose and who conducts a perfectly normal business transaction, can lose his asset. On a number of occasions Ministers and Deputy Ministers have promised me that they will look into the matter, but they only make it worse. That is all they do. Every year we get a little more, which in fact encroaches upon the innocent in this regard. However much one tries to help here, this is not the way to deal with this matter at all.

The other matter I would like to touch on, is that there are a number of powers which exist which I would like to deal with specifically insofar as this measure is concerned. I want to refer the hon the Minister on this occasion to page 38 of the printed Bill. Clause 28, which amends section 88 of the Act, reads as follows:

In other words, if one cannot find the goods—

I stress the words “any person”—

We can go back to all sorts of people here. If in fact we were only dealing with those who themselves had committed an offence, then this would be acceptable. However, we are here once again going much too far in regard to this clause than is necessary under the circumstances. To my mind the whole question of seeking to extend liability to all sorts of people is not something which should be extended in this measure, and I would like to suggest to the hon the Minister that all these provisions in this Act should be done away with under the circumstances. I am not only referring to the provisions of clause 28. This clause is one of the minor ones in this regard and I can quote a few more clauses to him where this situation is being extended.

I would also like to come back to some of these tariff changes which we are ratifying. I would like to ask some questions in relation to them. I refer specifically to page 4 of the booklet for easy reference and the tariff heading relating to items such as onions, shallots and leeks. Can anybody explain to me, Sir, why we should be importing onions into South Africa at all or leeks for that matter? What are we really doing, Sir? Is there any logic in this thing? I really cannot understand it, and why should we abolish a duty on these items? In exactly the same way, we are abolishing a duty in regard to items such as pickled onions, gherkins, cabbages and tomatoes. We have all these things in South Africa! Why do we now want to abolish the duty so that the people from outside can compete with our own people who provide these products in South Africa? If it is a question of price, let us hear that that is in fact the case and that we are trying to reduce living costs. I do not think, however, that a pickled onion is an essential in the life of any person. I just do not understand the logic as to why these items are being dealt with in this particular fashion.

While I criticise this and submit that in this regard we should be looking after our local people to a greater extent, I want to say on the other hand that the removal of the duty on books and tapes for use by the blind is something we can welcome. Obviously everyone will be appreciative of that particular action.

Now, Sir, there is another question I wish to ask. What is happening to the aluminium industry that we find ourselves in a situation in which such changes in tariffs have come about? If the hon the Deputy Minister would like to check it he will find it on page 24 of this little booklet. There is a whole series of items relating to the aluminium industry. I can give the hon the Deputy Minister the references to the notices, but he will find them on page 47 of the booklet. I think we need to know a little more about the aluminium industry, and particularly insofar as this particular aspect is concerned.

The next issue I want to raise is the question of the anti-dumping duty. Now, Sir, I find it a most remarkable thing—perhaps I will be forgiven for mentioning it because it may or may not be appropriate to the debate—that while people are talking about trade sanctions being imposed on us by Zimbabwe, we have to impose an anti-dumping duty on them in order to stop them from exporting things to South Africa at a low price. If anything is a contradiction in terms, Sir, that certainly is it. I find it remarkable that Zimbabwe should talk about imposing sanctions on us, while, at the very same time, we have to impose an anti-dumping duty on them in order to prevent them from exporting certain products to our country.

Finally, Sir, I should like to raise one other matter. That is the question of the whole of the import surcharge. This issue has now been watered down to a considerable extent, and I should like to suggest to the hon the Deputy Minister that the time has come to put an end to the import surcharge. There are ample provisions contained in the Act, ample powers to deal with specific duties relating to particular goods. There is no logical reason, however, for the import surcharge to be retained any longer. I believe it only serves to increase prices in a number of respects, and I should like to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to undertake to abolish the import surcharge now.

Despite the criticism that has been expressed, Sir, we still believe that as a whole the measure does merit support. Therefore we will vote for it.

Mr Chairman, may I take this opportunity to extend my sincere congratulations to the hon member for Yeoville and wish him everything of the best with their holy days that are at hand.

I trust that there will be many more such days in this parliamentary session, because throughout the time that I have been here I have never before had the opportunity to agree with the hon member for Yeoville as often as I have this evening.

I think that the hon member for Yeoville raised a very good point today when he pointed out that the matter of the issuing of permits for the export of cars could make a very considerable contribution to combating the tremendous car theft problem that we have to contend with. There are several other points, too, with which one could agree. The hon member for Yeoville also—in my humble opinion, of course—adopted a very sensible attitude in regard to that section of this Bill that deals with fuel.

The hon member for Barberton made certain statements here and asked certain questions relating to the provisions of this Bill relating to fuel. The hon member knows as well as I do that I have never heard of anyone willingly consenting to impose a tax on himself. That is certainly one aspect of the matter.

As regards the second point made by the hon member I just want to take this opportunity to point out to the hon member that his interpretation of how transport in agriculture is dealt with, is based on the old system and does not incorporate the new system. In terms of the new system there is no difference between the fuel in the truck with which one takes one’s maize to town, and the fuel that one puts in the same truck to bring the fertilizer back to the farm. In both cases the rebate is fourteen comma something cents, whereas in terms of the old scheme there was a very clear distinction between the two.

We are no wiser about the fertilizer.

When we speak about these problems in connection with the fuel levy, I think it is essential that we ask one another what we are in fact speaking about. In the first instance we are speaking about a loss of between R120 million and R140 million per annum suffered as a result of cheating. Seventy per cent of the cheating represented by that amount takes place in agriculture; not necessarily by farmers, but by operators who have made use of the concession relating to agricultural diesel and have thereby enriched themselves at the expense of the rest of us. As a result we are today faced with a very difficult situation as far as this Act is concerned.

As the Act stands at present, an additional interest factor of 0,84 cents per litre will be created, while in real terms fuel has become 0,87 cents per litre cheaper. In other words, the interest factor is not a factor at all. The additional cost factor as far as this matter is concerned is therefore really not something that can be calculated. I think that Mr Van Zyl, who discussed this matter on the radio, is quite wrong about the matter. It is a simple calculation to make.

The second aspect that creates a problem for the farmer is the issue of increased credit requirements, because it is true that for this scheme one needs increased credit requirements. If one takes a period of three months for the recovery of the additional amount one pays, one finds that at most there can be a 4,6% increase in one’s credit requirements from the co-operative. It is highly probable, owing to certain circumstances, that when one has a credit problem, it will be less than an additional 4,6%. Provision can be made for this, but in this regard the hon member for Barberton is quite right. The change in the scheme that we are working towards has to do with the farmer’s capacity to safeguard himself against loss as a result of the system as it is at present being implemented. For that reason a task group has been established that is working on this issue. If we say that the interest factor is not really serious and that the additional credit required is minimal, all that remains is the farmer’s capacity to protect himself against his own neglect. I think that the hon member for Barberton put it very directly and I agree with him, because I am myself a farmer. We farmers—whose activities cover a very broad spectrum, from injecting a cow to ensuring that a sheep does not get worms, while at the same time farming with maize—necessarily forfeit precision because we have to attend to such a wide variety of matters. That is why the hon the Minister saw fit to establish a task group to investigate this matter. The task group has not let the grass grow under its feet; it has done a great deal of work.

Are you a member?

No, I think the group consists of people from organised agriculture and officials of the department.

Section 75 of the principal Act as it is now being amended makes it possible to achieve a great deal as regards the streamlining of the existing Act. Like a dog, this Act has molars as well as incisors. The molars comprise subsection 24A which specifies how the Act will function.

Clause 23, which proposes to amend section 75 of the principal Act, contains the deterrents to which the hon member for Barberton referred, namely that they can refuse to continue to register a person—thus withdrawing a person’s registration—and can demand two years’ payments from a person if they wish. I am convinced that these deterrents embodied in this clause will be sufficient to prevent farmers from cheating. I make an urgent appeal to the hon the Minister to bear in mind that none of us can run the risk of having the provisions of clause 23 applied to us. Therefore we shall be very careful not to infringe these provisions. When we work in accordance with this measure we shall work in the knowledge that we must at all times protect the interests of the State, but that we must also protect the interests of the farmer.

Finally, I wish to tell the hon member for Barberton once again that when the Chairman of the SA Agricultural Union was asked whether they should proceed with the drafting of the legislation or increase the price of diesel—and I take it they were referring to a price of 4 cents per litre—I speak under correction—he said that he would prefer a change in the legislation to an increase in the diesel price. I stand by the SA Agricultural Union. I do not believe I have anywhere else to stand.

Turning from diesel, I wish to deal with the ad valorem tax imposed on combine harvesters. As the hon member for Wellington pointed out, the tax on tractors has been abolished. However there is still ad valorem tax on harvesters. The landed cost of an imported combine harvester is R120 000, but together with the ad valorem tax one pays an additional 30% in tax, on top of the purchase price. I do not believe that is fair, particularly when one takes into account that the heavy demand caused by the tremendous inflation in the country has now declined. Since the demand has declined to such an extent, the measures to resist the pressure of that demand can surely be withdrawn. I therefore appeal to the hon the Minister to give urgent attention to this matter. If he does so, it must be done with retrospective effect to include those harvesters which have not yet been sold, or else it will create a major problem for the community.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon members for their contributions. As hon members heard, the hon member who has just spoken is an expert in this field. He made it his field of study, and he was of great help to the Government in the application of this new system we have introduced.

I just want to say to hon members that there must be some understanding for the Government’s position. Our deficit before borrowing—the hon chief spokesman on Finance knows this very well—is tremendously high. The pressure on the Government is heavy. We had just gone through a depression. We have experienced a debt standstill. There has been unrest. We are engaged in a low-intensity war on the border. There is a revolutionary onslaught against us. All these things entail greater expenditure for the State account. The hon member also knows that there are sanctions and a disinvestment campaign against us, and in respect of this debt standstill we must maintain a surplus on the current account. If, under these circumstances, thousands of rands are lost from the system because the system cannot collect tax effectively, it is the duty of this Government, as far as taxpayers are concerned, to collect that tax, otherwise it will have to raise taxes. That is the situation. But that is only one aspect.

†I should also like the hon member to remember the other principles embodied in this legislation. The fact that the State was buying rebated fuel and then supplying it to, for example, the SATS, which was competing with the private sector, while the private sector was not entitled to rebated fuel, was also unfair. So was the fact that divisional councils, by virtue of the old system, were entitled to rebated fuel to build roads but municipalities were not, and the fact that certain standing engines were entitled to a fuel rebate if they were ostensibly being used for productive purposes while other machines that were standing but not being used for productive purposes could not use rebated fuel. How the Commissioner was ever expected to determine what machine was being used for productive purposes and what was not, I do not know. It was absolutely impossible.

Some local authorities were permitted to use rebated fuel for certain services, such as ambulances and fire-fighting equipment, while they could not buy rebated fuel for other services they provided. A system like that is simply hopeless. It is an open door for abuse, and I am not only referring to farmers. I have mentioned bus companies that became farmers and farmers that became bus companies. There were bus companies which bought rebated fuel and then became transporters, and transporters which became bus companies in order to have access to that kind of fuel, and so on.

The hon member knows about that, and I do not claim that the system we have now is the best one in the world. However, I do say it is a good system. It is working, and the undertaking given by the Commissioner for Customs and Excise, who was given the duty of providing a recouping service, that the concessional users would be repaid within a reasonable time, has been honoured. The shortest period between claim and repayment is now 12 days and the longest 30 days. I think that is very good, given the fact that the system has only just come into operation.

*The hon member for Heilbron spoke about the committee. The hon member for Barberton cracked a joke in regard to the committee. The fact of the matter is that we have a committee and the SA Agricultural Union serves on it. It is not under the chairmanship of the NP. It is under the chairmanship of the… [Interjections.] No, it is under the chairmanship of the Commissioner for Customs and Excise.

I must tell the hon member that we received proposals there which we believe are worth considering. We have already had a meeting. We have also received many interesting documents from the hon member for Heilbron, which we are studying, and we have another meeting next week at which the proposals of the Agricultural Union will be considered. In our opinion it might be worthwhile looking into some of those proposals. We do not have a monopoly on wisdom, nor do we claim to have. We are not implying that we are working with the ideal system, because we are not. However, we do think it is better than the one we had, because that one did not work.

If that hon member therefore thinks that we can allow hundreds of millions of rands simply to disappear into the sand, against the background of the situation in which our country finds itself at present and in which this Government has to govern, I feel sorry for him.

Surely you are talking nonsense now.

If that hon member thinks the farmers think the way he does, he is wrong.

†Earlier on in the year that hon member supported the measure, but now that a couple of resolutions have been passed at agricultural congresses he is suddenly a “groot voorprater” who does not support it. [Interjections.] The hon member is not a leader, but a follower. Let me tell him that we would rather have the respect of the nation than their liking. I also want to say that this country expects us to collect the taxes that are due and payable in a fair manner.

I shall remember what you said just now.

The hon member must please remember it.

You are dishonest.

I make no apology to the hon member or anybody else for collecting the tax that is due and payable.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Barberton say that the hon the Deputy Minister is dishonest?

Order! The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I make no excuse to that member or anybody else for collecting the taxes that are due and payable in such a way as not to inconvenience the people involved.

There were other principles. The agricultural sector for which we have the highest regard, are still receiving all of the benefits they had under the previous system, yet the bus companies are not. [Interjections.] The bus companies and the local authorities no longer receive the rebates they got before. Yet, the Government has retained the rebates that the farmers were entitled to previously. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon member…

Order! If any such dialogues are occurring across the floor of this House, they must be continued outside. The hon the Deputy Minister has very little time and would like to continue.

I want to make that hon member an offer. We do not think we have all the wisdom in the world. If he has any ideas on improving the system, I should like to hear them. He can submit them to our committee and we should be delighted to evaluate any contribution he has to make, but we are not going to get anywhere in this country with his type of attitude of simply rejecting everything because he thinks he is being clever. If he has any constructive proposals to make and he is critical of the system, I invite him to let us hear them. I can promise him we shall evaluate them before that committee. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville said we should ban the export of used cars. I just want to say that that is not a matter for us, but for the Board of Trade to decide on and if he feels that it should be done, I suggest that he should bring a motivated request before the Board of Trade. I shall also submit the matter to Dr McCrystal for his information.

He also said something about dumping. Anti-dumping duties are applied all the time not only to Zimbabwe but to all our trading partners. Goods that originate from our trading partners are sometimes dumped in our part of the world. There is provision to deal with that situation.

Zimbabwe is a very significant trading partner of South Africa. It is one of our largest trading partners and it is not unusual to have dumping from that quarter from time to time. I am happy to say that the trade relations between Zimbabwe and South Africa are fairly stable and good at the moment and we are delighted about that. It can only be for the good of the region.

The particular suitcases he was referring to were dumped here and the Board of Trade followed its standard and normal procedure in that regard.

The hon member asked what we were doing to the aluminium industry by allowing aluminium items into the country. The fact is—and the hon member should know it—that the Board of Trade analyses every application for a tariff increase or reduction and, if a local industry cannot supply that quality in sufficient quantities—I think in this case it is aluminium rods—they will allow a decrease in the tariff or, vice versa, they will allow an upgrading of the tariff if the local industry needs protection. It is a normal procedure and there is nothing unusual in what happened there—it happens every day.

*The hon member for Barberton said that no one understands our new regulations. I just want to tell the hon member that we have already sent an information document to the farmers on those regulations which according to him we have still not published. We shall try to do our best to obtain the support of the farmers for this entire effort, and to inform them as well as possible.

For the information of the hon member I can just tell him that we have already registered 43 300 farmers. We therefore have their addresses and if we receive information documents, which are explanatory, we use those address lists and we send the information to the farmers.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister said the farmers have already been informed about the regulations. Have the regulations already been drawn up?

There is an information document on the regulations which are being drawn up… [Interjections.] No, we have informed the farmers about what stage has been reached and explained to them what is coming. We are taking the farmers with us step for step and keeping them informed. [Interjections.] I just want to say this to the hon member for Barberton. He goes along with and parrots people who say that we will take three or four months to pay people back, and it is supposedly such a complicated system. However, the people who applied for a rebate on 2 August, received it within 21 days. That was the first group, and by now we have registered 43 000 people.

†The shortest turn-around time is 10 days and the longest is 30 days, and the average is somewhere in-between. That is a very good service when one thinks that even a farmer who uses 10 000 litres a month is getting a benefit of R2 250 per month for the 10 000 litres he uses. This is a tremendous benefit, and if the hon member tells me that the farmer has to spend a few minutes filling in a form in order to get that benefit, then I say, given the size of the benefit, that that is not a very big imposition to place upon him. [Interjections.]

You hate the farmers [Interjections.]

No, that is not true.

I just want to go through this rapidly. The hon member for Hillbrow gave us a very good explanation, and we are grateful for it. I also want to thank the hon member for Gezina for his support. As usual he stated the case very well. I also want to thank the hon member for Yeoville very sincerely for his support for this measure.

Question put.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—104: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosnian, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Burrows, R M; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Coetzer, P W; Cronjé, P C; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; Delport, J T; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Ellis, M J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff. D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; Hulley, R R; Hunter, J E L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, TAP; Lemmer, J J; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malcomess, D J N; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meyer, A T; Myburgh, G B; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, N J J; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Schwarz, H H; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Soal, P G; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Swart, RAF; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van de Vyver, J H; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, S S; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Vilonel, J J; Walsh, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Jordaan, A L; Ligthelm, C J; Maree, M D; Meyer, W D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit. H A.

Noes—15: Beyers, J M; Coetzee, H J; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Hartzenberg, F; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Schoeman, C B.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee stage taken without debate.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.