Order! I have to inform the House that on Friday, 9 February, members of the Press Gallery were questioned by police officers about a matter which had no bearing on their duties as Parliamentary Press representatives or on Parliament itself. The questioning was carried out in offices in the Parliamentary Building. I have to inform the House that the questioning was undertaken without my knowledge or that of the Secretary to Parliament. As soon as it came to the attention of the Secretary that members of the Press Gallery were being interviewed in the Parliamentary Building by the police, he reported accordingly to me and I issued instructions that the questioning was to cease forthwith, which instructions were complied with.

Shortly after I had stopped the interrogation the hon. the Minister of Police asked to see me and expressed his sincere regret that the questioning of members of the Press Gallery by the police inside Parliament had taken place without my consent and tendered his apology.

He told me that he had been assured that the necessary permission had been obtained.

I have established that the police did ask for and obtained permission from an official of Parliament, who also arranged for them to do the questioning in certain rooms. The official has since been reprimanded.

Under the circumstances I accepted the hon. the Minister’s apology.

It goes without saying that police officers are on duty within the precincts of Parliament only for the purpose of assisting the responsible officers of Parliament in carrying out the orders of Parliament and maintaining order and decorum within its precincts, mainly in regard to security, and are under their directions acting on behalf of Mr. President and Mr. Speaker.

No permission will be given to question members of the Press Gallery inside the Parliamentary Building, and I reaffirm the principle that police officers may only enter the Parliamentary precincts for purposes falling outside the normal scope of their Parliamentary security duties with the express consent of Mr. President or Mr. Speaker.

I trust in view of the statement which I have just made the House will be prepared to leave further action in my hands after consultation through the usual channels.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you very briefly on your statement?

Order! I regret that I do not want any address or any form of debate in the House on my statement.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The principal aims of this Bill are twofold. In the first place it enables the Perishable Products Export Control Board—to which I shall refer hereafter as “the board”—to grant loans to persons in its employ. In the second place it contains certain provisions relating to the reserve fund. It is expected of certain officers of the board to travel a great deal in the execution of their duties. Some of the officers have also regularly to work shifts after hours. Suitable public transport is seldom available in these cases and there is a need for a motor-car scheme equivalent to that which applies to the agricultural control boards at the moment. This scheme entails, inter alia, that loans may be granted to officers to acquire a vehicle. Such a car scheme would cost the board less than it would to purchase cars. Since the existing Act make no provision for the granting of loans, it is proposed that the Act be adjusted accordingly.

†The present Act fixes the reserve fund at an amount which shall not exceed the sum of £12 000. This amount was last amended in 1957, and consequently bears no relation to the current activities of the board. It is therefore suggested that the Act be amended to fix the reserve fund at an amount approved by the Minister of Transport from time to time, to allow the reserve to maintain a level which has a relationship to the board’s activities without requiring regular further amendments.

*The present legislation requires that expenditure in any year shall be met from the proceeds of the levy imposed during that year. The board is therefore in the difficult position that at the beginning of every year, advances on levies must be obtained from the Deciduous Fruit Board to cover certain current expenditures, whereas adequate surplus levy revenue is available from the previous year but under the present section 12(6) it may not be used. As a result the board finds it difficult in the extreme to function effectively. The proposed Bill provides for the expenditure of levy income irrespective of the year in which such funds are received, to cover expenditures.

†The matters mentioned above are the essence of the proposed amendments to the Act All other amendments are merely to ensure that the Act as a whole is brought in line with these proposals. The Treasury, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Auditor-General are in agreement with the proposed amendments.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill of technical nature and having heard the hon. the Minister’s explanation we, as the official Opposition, will support it. We accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance that the power given to the board to make loans to its employees is directed specifically towards a car-ownership scheme. If it had gone further than that we might have had other thoughts, but this is quite in order as far as we are concerned.

As far as the establishment of a bigger reserve fund, is concerned, leaving ministerial discretion to set the limit of the fund, all we would like to say to the hon. the Minister is that we hope that at no time does he envisage the sort of empire building that we have seen in so many control boards of this nature. From the hon. the Minister’s explanation we can accept that as far as he is concerned, nothing like this is envisaged. The other amendments are consequential and we will support them from this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this measure is not contentious and for that reason I do not intend making an endless speech about it.

In the first place, I wish to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for supporting this measure. In the second place I wish to focus on a few of the principles contained in it and amplify what the Minister has already outlined in his Second Reading speech.

In my humble opinion there are actually only three important provisions in this Bill. The first of these is contained in clause 1. As the Minister indicated, it is expected of certain of the officials of the House to travel considerably in the performance of their duties. It is also expected of these officials to work after hours in the course of their duties. This has been the case particularly since the institution of the new containerization service, since it is required that all containers intended for the transportation of perishable products, must first be examined by the board, and the loading process must be supervised. The situation is that suitable public transport is not always freely available to these officials. For that reason the need has arisen for these officials to be included in a motor-car scheme, equivalent to those we find today in the case of the agricultural control boards. The envisaged motor-car scheme entails, inter alia, that a loan be granted to officials for the purchasing of a motor-car. Repayment will occur over a minimum period of five years in equal monthly instalments at 6% compound interest.

As the hon. the Minister indicated, at the moment no legal powers exist for the granting of loans to these officials for the officials for the purchase of motor-cars. That, in my humble opinion, is one of the important provisions contained in this legislation.

Another important provision, as also indicated by the hon. the Minister, is that the reserve fund of the board is at present limited to the amount of R24 000. This amount was fixed as far back as 1957 and in addition to the fact that the money unit mentioned has already been in disuse for almost 20 years, the amount is not even remotely in proportion to the present requirements of the board, either. Furthermore, it can be accepted that the activities of the board will not remain static, and consequently the amount in the reserve fund will vary from time to time. In order to prevent frequent amendments to the law, while at the same time providing for possible fluctuations, it is suggested that the amount of the reserve fund be fixed by the hon. the Minister from time to time.

With reference to one aspect which the hon. the member for Orange Grove mentioned, I just wish to say that the onus now rests on this House to submit a motivated case to the hon. the Minister who must then grant or withhold his permission for an increase in or reduction of the reserve fund. It is, therefore, the case that this reserve fund cannot be arbitrarily increased or reduced by the envisaged board.

It is at present estimated that the reserve fund ought to amount to a sum of approximately R200 000. The increase will be effected yearly—and I consider this important—by means of the depositing of surpluses and not by means of an additional levy tariff. The envisaged increases in respect of these reserve funds have already been discussed with the Deciduous Fruit Board and the Citrus Board. These two boards are jointly responsible for approximately 76% of the income of the board now under discussion. The matter has also been discussed with some of our smaller exporters, and they have all agreed that provision should, in fact, be made in this regard.

By increasing the reserve fund the board will, in the first place, be in a position to counteract major fluctuations in levy tariffs. In the second place it will stabilize the income of the board. In the third place it will be used to cover unexpected and abnormal expenditure which could, for example, be caused as a result of an improvement in technology. In the fourth place it will place the board in a position always to function independently, even though its income during a specific year may be below average. The board will then not be dependent on a State subsidy. This, then, is in my opinion the second most important provision contained in the legislation.

Another important provision is contained in clause 3 of the legislation. Section 12(6) of the Principal Act, which is now being amended by clause 3, specifies that the expenditure in any calendar year may only be covered out of the levy income of that year. The hon. the Minister also indicated that income varies from month to month and is in direct proportion to the volume of products which must be exported and handled. The export of agricultural products in particular is subject to various factors which can exercise an unfavourable influence, such as poor weather conditions and a poor demand on international markets. These factors are, as we all know, beyond the board’s control. I have already indicated that the board’s major source of income derives from the Citrus Board and the Deciduous Fruit Board. The export of deciduous fruits commences from as early as February and lasts till June. The export of citrus fruits lasts from April to approximately September and that means, therefore, that as from September till February of the following year, the board will have a very small income. The board is, therefore, placed in the tricky position that at the beginning of each year it has to obtain advance payments or levies from the Deciduous Fruit Board to enable the board to cover certain running costs. Although sufficient levy income from the previous year is then available, it cannot, according to the provisions of the present legislation, be used for such a purpose. As a result, the board finds it extremely difficult to function effectively.

In my opinion these are the three most important provisions contained in the legislation before the House and it is also a pleasure for me to support the legislation strongly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my party also to give our support to the Bill. The hon. the Minister told us that it mainly concerns the provision of funds in order to allow the board to make loans to its employees to enable them to purchase motorcars for use in conducting their duties during employment. This is not unusual because it is done by many other boards, including agricultural boards, and I know that many companies in the private sector also conduct such schemes. The hon. the Minister also said that the provision has had the approval of the board as well as that of the Auditor-General. There are, however, two aspects that concern us in these benches. The first one is that while the hon. the Minister says that the scheme is designed to enable loans to be granted to employees for the purchasing of motor-cars for use in the conducting of their duties, the actual clause reads—

That means that the clause does not limit the loans to be used only for the purchasing of motor-cars for transportation during the conducting of the duties of such employees. As we read it, it also allows the board to grant loans to employees for purposes other than purchasing motor-cars. This gives us cause for concern for the simple reason that the board may decide to lend money to its employees to purchase homes, or, as happens occasionally in the private sector, lend their employees money to overcome financial difficulties, etc. While the hon. the Minister says that the Auditor-General will look at these accounts, if this Bill is passed as it stands, it will mean that should the board at some future date grant loans to employees for purposes other than buying motor-cars, the Auditor-General will not query it at all because the board is allowed to do so in terms of this Bill. We query the wisdom of this and would ask the hon. the Minister to give further consideration thereto.

This second reservation we have is in respect of the reserve fund. In the past the reserve fund was limited to a specific amount. I do not believe that it is beyond the scope or the ingenuity of the board to calculate or to determine exactly the size of the fund to enable them to finance an assistance programme such as this one for motor-cars. We are concerned that the board may in the passage of time build up a reserve fund far in excess of what is really required. These funds are after all really levied on the farmers who produce these agricultural products and we see no reason at all why farmers’ money should be tied up in reserve funds when it isn’t absolutely necessary. We would therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to limit the size of this fund to the amount required for the purposes stated in this Bill.

We put these questions to the hon. the Minister in the hope that he will give us some assurances in this matter. I give notice that we intend to move two amendments during the Committee Stage, amendments which we hope will sort out the difficulties that we have. In other respects we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I find it pleasant that we have so much agreement in this House today. After the turbulence of last week this Bill introduced by the hon. the Minister of Transport is indeed a breath of fresh air. To us this is a special occasion, and particularly since the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has spoken, the water irrigating our perishable products is very sweet.

The exportation of fruit can earn hundreds of millions of rands for South Africa. For that reason this legislation is of the greatest importance to us. The basic principle in this legislation—as pointed out by another hon. member as well—concerns fruit transported in refrigerated containers. This constitutes a test for the containerization process, particularly since some of these products are now being exported to England, Western Europe, the Middle East, the Far East and the USA.

Furthermore, this legislation is very important if we bear in mind that 30 000 cartons of pears were exported to the Middle East last year. It is expected that this amount will increase to 340 000 cartons this year. It is also expected that the export of grapes will increase by 20%.

As far as apples are concerned, 11 million cartons are already being exported and it is expected that cartons to the value of more than R100 million will be exported this year. This is taking place in spite of strikes and unpleasant weather conditions in Europe. It is of great importance that this legislation be passed so that these matters can be dealt with more effectively.

We want to thank the hon. the Minister in particular for the fact that this reserve fund will now be determined by ministerial decision.

Where fluctuations take place, I can give the assurance that we shall never have anything to fear as far as the hon. the Minister of Transport is concerned for he knows his subject, he is an excellent Minister and knows what to do. For that reason we shall never have to criticize him because we have a Minister of Transport upon whom we can always depend.

I am sure he will eventually make it a brilliant success of this. The point at issue here is the considerable fluctuations in the levies. It concerns the stabilization of revenue and unexpected abnormal expenditure. The hon. the Minister should always be able to act independently and expertly. On behalf of this side of the House it is my privilege to state that we support this legislation wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by making a few remarks about the reserve fund. In the first place the hon. member for Orange Grove must accept that this board is not a control board comparable to other control boards. It is true that in English the Bill is called “Perishable Products Export Control Amendment Bill”, but I think the Afrikaans title is more descriptive of the work of the board. The Afrikaans title is “Die Wysigingswetsontwerp op Reëling van Uitvoer van Bederfbare Produkte”. The Afrikaans text refers to “reeling” and not “control”. This of course does not derogate from the importance of the board, because the importance of the board is primarily due to the fact that the products are perishable products and in the nature of the matter, perishable products require special treatment. In the second place, the importance of the board lies in the fact that we are here concerned with exports and therefore with the promotion of our export industry. Since the hon. member compared this board with other control boards, I began with this argument just to draw his attention to the fact that we are not really dealing with “control” here comparable to that of the agricultural control boards. It is true that we are now requesting an unlimited amount for the reserve fund. The Act does not make provision for this at the moment. If we bear in mind that the amount of R12 000 was laid down in 1957, viz. more than 20 years ago …

£12 000!

I mean £12 000. That was more than 20 years ago. In the light of the value of money today and particularly the development in the field of the export of deciduous fruits and perishable products in general, the amount, if we compare it with file £12 000 of 20 years ago, could easily be approximately R¼ million. I think hon. members will agree with me. Not only have the activities of the board developed to such an extent, but the value of money has changed in the meantime as well. To prevent the possibility of our having to come back in the near future to amend the Act again, we are now providing that we can amend it with the Minister’s permission.

I do not think the hon. member for Amanzimtoti need be concerned that we will impose oversevere levies on the farmers and will not hear about it. The man who speaks along those lines does not know farmers. He does not know how quick the farmers are to object.

But he himself is a farmer!

If there are any signs that the levies are too high, one will very soon encounter complaints from the farmers. However, I want to put another factor, too, to the hon. member, and this has more to do with me. The hon. member must realize that 80% of the export grapes, 75% of the export pears and about 50% of the apples that are exported, come from my constituency.

Why do you not give us all a box?

Never!

The hon. member for Caledon is the only one who can begin to compete with me! [Interjections.] Hon. members will therefore realize that there will soon be a reaction. They need not therefore be concerned about that. We should therefore like to have a slightly freer hand as far as this reserve fund is concerned.

I now come to the question of loans. It is true that we are not restricting this to loans for motor-cars. However, hon. members must bear in mind that whereas we have made this provision comparable to those of the other agricultural control boards, in the case of the other control boards this provision is not laid down in legislation. It is laid down in a code. Here, however, it is being laid down in legislation and is subject to the approval of the Minister. In other words, this board cannot simply go ahead and grant loans. It is expressly provided that any loan must be granted with the approval of the Minister. I want to state today that it is not our intention, not at this stage in any event, to grant any loans other than for motor-cars. That, too, is why I said so so expressly. Let me just dwell on that. The hon. member for Welkom rightly said that as in the case of agricultural control boards, these will be loans repayable over a maximum period of five years at compound interest of 6%. The fact of the matter is that we should like to make the position a little more flexible. It is possible that in a deserving case a loan could be granted for something other than a motor-car. Consequently we do not wish to confine this exclusively to motor-cars. At this stage, however, it is not the intention to provide for anything other than motor-car loans. Hon. members must understand that clearly.

I think that these are the only matters raised in the discussion. I want to express my appreciation for the support given to this measure by both sides of the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure is aimed mainly at the provision of a greater degree of protection for certain important provincial roads.

Initially the provisions of the Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act, No. 21 of 1940, applied to national as well as building restrictions roads—i.e. roads which were proclaimed as such by the Administrator of the province concerned.

When the former National Roads Act, No. 42 of 1935, was replaced in 1971 with Act 54 of 1971, the protecting measures with regard to national roads, measures which were formerly embodied in Act 21 of 1940, were embodied in the new National Roads Act, No. 54 of 1971, and consequently Act 21 of 1940 was appropriately amended at the same time to delete all mention of national roads in that Act. Therefore Act 11 of 1940 is no longer applicable to national roads at all, but only to provincial roads in respect of which the Administrator of a province is the controlling power.

During the Administrators’ conference held in Bloemfontein in September 1977, a suggestion of the Transvaal Provincial Administration was accepted to the effect that the definition of a public road and the centre of the building restriction circle at the junction of an ordinary road with a building restriction road, in Act 21 of 1940, should be amended.

As far as the amendment of the definition of a public road is concerned, the present definition implies that the public should have the right to use the road. What this amounts to in practice is that a road only becomes a public road after it is built and opened to the public. From this it follows that no public road can be declared a building restriction road before the road is built and opened to the public. Sometimes it takes a number of years after main roads or throughways are proclaimed as such before construction on them is started, and years before they are finished and can be opened to the public. According to the Act in its present form, such public roads cannot be protected during this period against urban development by the private sector. The effect of the amendment of the definition of a public road will be that a road, immediately after it is proclaimed as a main road or throughway, can also be declared a building restriction road. In this way the proclaimed road, even if it is only to be built in the future, can be protected against ribbon development immediately.

At the moment the Act stipulates that the controlling power can control actions within a radius of 500 metres measured from the intersection line of two roads. This implies that the two roads should cross each other and therefore it does not cover the case where two roads only join each other, e.g. in the form of a T-junction. To make provision for this deficiency, the provinces requested that section 9A(l)(a) be amended in such a way that the centre of the building restriction circle from where the 500 metre radius with regard to two roads which only join each other is measured, should be moved to the point where the centre line of the joining road touches the road reserve boundary of the road with which it is linked up.

Experience has taught us that private developers give preference to the development of large business complexes in the immediate neighbourhood of junction roads, a factor which leads to a large volume of traffic and is a direct cause of traffic problems. The department knows how serious this matter is and therefore supports the amendment.

The other amendments deal only with the metrication of distances.

Mr. Speaker, this, again, is a technical Bill which makes provision for minor amendments to the Act. In the spirit of tranquillity that we are finding in the House this week, as opposed to the spirit which pertained last week, we are going to support this Bill.

During the debate on the last Bill I saw that the hon. member for Welkom followed me and this seems to indicate to me that he is the new chairman of the NP Transport group. If this is so, I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment.

According to the explanation of the hon. the Minister, this Bill is the result of recommendations which came from the Administrators’ conference. I must say that on first reading this Bill I wondered why the hon. the Minister found it necessary to introduce a Bill at all about what seemed to be comparatively minor matters. I am, however, satisfied with his explanation. One thing I could perhaps say, is that if delays in the proclamation of roads are so long that it is necessary to introduce this Bill, it would perhaps be better to hurry up the process to ensure that such delays do not come about and that roads are proclaimed as soon as they are planned. One realizes the difficulties a company has in a situation in which planning is inadequate and large shopping centres are built close to intersections of roads, but one could only say to the Government at this stage that if one is going to have overall planning, it is going to be necessary to think about this sort of thing long before it becomes necessary to use legislation of this kind to affect the situation. We shall, however, not quarrel with this Bill and we shall not vote against it, but we want to suggest that minor Bills of this nature are very expensive to introduce into Parliament. I do not believe that the situation is that urgent that a special Bill of this nature should be introduced.

Mr. Speaker, although the Opposition is supporting the Bill, I find it amazing that they say that it is unnecessary to introduce such an important Bill before this House. They say that there are unnecessary delays in the construction of roads once they have been planned, but I think that the hon. member is aware that the construction of roads has become a very expensive business today, especially in cases where very expensive land has to be purchased. Once it has been decided to construct a road along a certain route, it is obvious that it will take a very long time before one can begin with the actual work of construction. Experience has shown, particularly in recent years, that as soon as planning of this nature takes place, town developers immediately start developing such an area for the specific reason that substantial amounts have to be paid out to purchase their rights.

I think, therefore, that this Bill is not only necessary, but that it has been introduced by the hon. Minister at just the right time. I am also very pleased that provision is now made for a restriction at T-intersections. However, it is not only in the urban areas where one has the problem that developers initiate development specifically at those places because of the advantages that are involved. In the rural areas in particular, garages or similar businesses are usually found at intersections of this kind, and this creates a special danger for the travelling public, especially when the traffic on those roads increases.

Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to support this Bill to the full.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell the hon. the Minister that we too shall be supporting the Bill. Before I say the few words I have to say I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Welkom on his promotion to chairman of the Transport group. It is very nice to have him in this group and no doubt we shall have some very interesting debates as time goes on.

We have no problem at all with this particular Bill. We can see the need for the minor amendments which are being made. In some places it is merely a matter of metricating certain distances, converting them into metres from yards. However, I should like to say that clause 3 is a very important clause. I refer to the prevention of the building of structures at intersections or at T-junctions on our roads and highways. Not only does it prevent the building of structures which can cause hazards as far as drivers are concerned in that these often tend to obstruct the driver’s vision. It also prevents the erection—the hon. the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—of advertising signs which I think is a very good thing. Seeing that I now have the opportunity I should just like to say that South Africa can be very pleased that it has this type of legislation which prevents our highways and roads from being cluttered with a lot of advertising which in other parts of the world tend—if I might use the term— to pollute the environment.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When I introduced the National Roads Amendment Bill, 1978, last year—it was later placed on the Statute Book as Act No. 38 of 1978—I told hon. members that the measure was necessary to provide for an increase of 0,425 cent per litre, which would be paid into the National Road Fund out of the customs or excise duty on certain petroleum products, as agreed upon by the Minister of Finance and myself. In that way, the amount which accrues to the National Road Fund from this levy was increased from 2,154 cents per litre to 2,579 cent per litre. That was last year.

However, the increase was only a temporary allocation to have a certain amount accruing to the Road Fund and will cease on 31 March 1979.

Arising out of negotiations between the Department of Transport and the Treasury, it was agreed that the allocation, which will return to the original amount of 2,154 cent per litre at the end of March, should be permanently increased by 0,2 cents per litre to 2,354 cent per litre. The increase will come into operation on 1 April 1979.

The portion of the customs or excise duty accruing to the National Road Fund, is stipulated in section 2(1)(a) of the National Roads Act and therefore it is necessary that the amount of 2,579 cents in that Act be replaced by 2,354 cents to bring it into line with the increase as agreed upon by the hon. the Minister of Finance and myself. This will come into operation on 1 April 1979.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very short Bill indeed. As the hon. the Minister said, it purely and simply changes the amount that accrues to the National Roads Fund from every litre of petrol sold. We will not quarrel with this. There is one thing, however, we would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister. We should like him to mention to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs a suggestion I would like to put forward. When savings of this nature do come about it would be very nice if they were passed on to the consumer. Otherwise we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to stress briefly that we on this side of the House support the hon. the Minister of Transport as far as the proposed legislation on national roads is concerned. I should also like to use the opportunity to thank the hon. Opposition for their insight in supporting this legislation as well. We thank them sincerely for doing so.

If ever there was a fund which was used advantageously for our whole country, it is this very fund. This is a fund which is used in the interests of South Africa. Therefore we have pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will never be opposed to any Bill which reduces Government spending, which is aimed at a reduction in the amount of money to be spent by the Government. However, when a similar Bill was proposed here last year, a Bill in which the hon. the Minister asked for a increase in the levy payable to the National Road Fund, I welcomed the increase. We stated at that time that it was this party’s view that good national roads are essential to a progressive and young country. [Interjections.] Therefore, providing, of course, the hon. the Minister assured us that the money was to be spent on good roads, on roads that were needed, we would not oppose it. However, now we find that the hon. the Minister proposes a reduction. We welcome this reduction, with the proviso of course that the hon. the Minister assures us that the national road development is not going to be inhibited as a result of this. I have been assured that this will not be the case.

However, I should be like to take this opportunity—the hon. the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—of stating that this total levy is of the order of 10c to 14c a litre. I am referring to the customs and excise levy. I use this opportunity in order to clarify that people who use vehicles on roads, whether they are lorries or private motor-cars, are contributing a tremendous amount, not just to the construction of national roads, but also to the General Revenue Fund. It has often been said in debates in this House, especially when we talk about the other hat which the hon. the Minister wears—that of Railways—that the Railways operate socio-economic services. I should like to suggest to him that the road-user is actually subsidizing many other areas of Government expenditure. He is not only paying 2,35c per litre on petrol for the construction of national roads, but he also through his vehicle license, is contributing towards the construction of district and provincial roads. In addition, a levy of 4c per litre goes towards the financing of projects such as Sasol. In addition to this, quite a large amount goes into the General Revenue Fund. I say this just to clarify the fact that the road user is taxed to quite an extent, not only to finance roads, but also many other Government projects.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has said is true. There is a heavy tax on fuel, but I wonder whether the hon. member would not agree with me that this is nevertheless desirable, especially in the light of our present problems with regard to the obtaining of crude oil. I feel that people should be discouraged from using fuel as freely and often as unnecessarily as is often the case. However, I do not think that this question is relevant at the moment. Unfortunately I am not in the position to tell the hon. member what the total customs and excise duty on fuel amounts to, but I can readily obtain this information if necessary. The fact of the matter is that here I am dealing only with that portion paid into the National Road Fund. I can quite understand that the hon. member is satisfied with that, because each province receives a very big share of the money in the National Road Fund.

Not enough.

The justified complaints ought therefore to come from the other provinces. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is, if I may just explain it in more detail, that I came to an agreement with the Minister of Finance earlier, that a specific amount would accrue to the Roads Fund over a specific period. That amount was R39 million. For this purpose I introduced legislation last year to the effect that a levy of 0,425 cent per litre should be imposed on fuel. We calculated that at that rate an additional R32 million would accrue to the National Road Fund until 31 March 1979. Therefore one cannot put these two amounts on a par. Subsequently I again agreed with my colleague that we should now have 0,2 cents per litre on fuel on a permanent base instead of the 0,425 cent per litre which we have levied until now. It is for this purpose that we now want to amend this Act.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is aimed at bringing about the following improvements to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1941. In the first place, pensions which cease in the middle of the month, will be payable until the end of that month. In the second place, provision is being made for a longer period within which application for increased compensation may be lodged. In the third place, the increase of certain pensions is envisaged.

In order to explain the proposed amendments, I have already tabled an explanatory memorandum and I should now like to furnish further particulars of the proposed amendments.

As far as clause 1 of the Bill is concerned, it is proposed that a pension which ceases in the course of a calendar month, will be payable as if it had ceased on the last day of that month. Many pensioners depend on their monthly pensions to meet their financial obligations at the end of the month and in order not to cause them embarrassment or inconvenience, their cheques are posted in the course of the calendar month. However, it does happen that a pensioner who dies before the end of the month, receives a small overpayment for part of the month, which has to be claimed back from the estate with great difficulty and at great cost. For this reason it is desirable that a pension which ceases, will be payable for the full calendar month during which it ceases.

Clause 2, in which the amendment of section 43 of the Act is proposed, concerns the period within which application for increased compensation may be lodged if the accident took place under certain circumstances. Such an application must be lodged within six months and the period may then be extended by a further period of six months by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. However, in practice we have learnt that there are cases in which a further extension is justified. Therefore it is recommended that the commissioner may extend the period by 18 months instead of six months. In this way it will be possible to have a prescription period of two years which will correspond to the general prescription period for the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund.

I now come to the increase in certain pensions contained in clause 3 of the Bill. During 1977, benefits, including pensions, awarded as a result of accidents suffered by workers during working hours, or in the case of fatal accidents suffered by members of their families, were improved considerably. However, for financial reasons it was not possible to make the improved benefits applicable to accidents which took place before 1 June 1977 as well. However, the financial position of the various people at risk has now improved to such an extent that an increase of 15% in current pensions can be recommended in respect of accidents which took place before 1 June 1977.

Mr. Speaker, those are the proposed amendments and I trust that they will receive the approval of hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us is a very brief one and, in each case, an improvement on the present legislation. The hon. the Minister has outlined the three main improvements and there is no need for me to rehearse what he has already said. I want to make only a single comment and that is that one welcomes the improvement, i.e. the tidying up of the present legislation and we welcome clause 3 especially as it allows for the 15% improvement. We believe that this is right and necessary and we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express the gratitude and appreciation of this side of the House to the hon. official Opposition for the fact that they are supporting the legislation before the House at present. I believe that we, as responsible people, should at all times support proper and positive amendments made to the Workmen’s Compensation Act. We in the House have a duty to consider the future of the worker in South Africa at all times and to see to his welfare, for without the worker, South Africa’s economy means nothing. I believe that an explanatory memorandum has been tabled and I do not wish to elaborate on that. We believe that as far as the practical aspects are concerned, it will be possible to implement the Workmen’s Compensation Act in a more practical manner and that all the various sectors will welcome these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches should also like to add that we welcome the amendments which the hon. the Minister has proposed in this Bill. I should only like to comment briefly on all three paragraphs concerned. We agree totally that from the practical and technical point of view, the improvement in clause 1 is certainly to be welcomed from the point of view of the recipients of these benefits. I think the inconvenience of this minority of our population is not often appreciated. They suffer a great degree of difficulty purely because a pension ceases on a particular date. We would therefore like to welcome this improvement in the extension of their monthly pensions to the end of a particular calendar month.

In regard to clause 2 we are also fully in accord with the hon. Minister. We agree with this in principle although it is a great pity that it is not possible to some extent to back-date this particular paragraph in order to spread the benefit back to those who may currently be suffering under this six-month’s clause.

We also welcome clause 3 and we are sure that there are going to be a large number of recipients of these benefits in South Africa who will welcome the fact that they are able to combat inflation to some extent with this 15% increase in pension benefits. On behalf of this side of the House, I would like to say that we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, to a certain extent I agree with the hon. member for Durban North that one should like to see the improvements to the Workmen’s Compensation Act being back-dated further. Unfortunately there are cases where pensions were awarded on very old scales and these pensions are consequently very low measured against the present cost of living. However, we should not lose sight of the fact—and for the record it is perhaps necessary that I mention it here—that between 12 000 and 13 000 pensioners will benefit as a result of the amendments proposed in this Bill. There are 6 400 people who are classified as receiving benefits from the Fund and the amount which will be taken from the Fund annually, is R485 000. As far as the Civil Service, the provincial administrations and the Administration of South West Africa are concerned, the State will have to pay approximately R110 000 more per annum from the Treasury. Furthermore it will cost the South African Railways R243 000. An amount totalling R839 000 will therefore be paid from the Fund to these pensioners annually. We are not including in this amount those who benefit under the Federated Employees’ Mutual Aid Association and the Rand Mutual Association. On behalf of the workers of South Africa I want to say I believe that these amendments will be noted with appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, as there is such widespread peace in this House after last week, I should also like to participate in the debate.

†I want to reinforce the plea which emanated from two other hon. members, namely that in future we should have a look at making the provision regarding extension of time retrospective. We as legislators must always guard against creating precedents which could give rise to unnecessary applications inundating the commissioner. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that in this particular case there can only possibly be a handful of people who have in the past become victims of the negligence of their employers or a patent defect in their employer’s business. As a result of this, there cannot be too many of these cases. These are nevertheless the people who really require relief. It has happened to them because of negligence on the part of their employers. Whilst it will be good to know that in future there will be a system whereby they will be put on a par with those under motor vehicle insurance, there is no joy for the people who are already the victims today for them to know that legally nothing can be done to help them.

*I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to do some research in the future to establish whether it is not possible to help these people.

Mr. Speaker, although this is a very short Bill, it is, to my mind, a particularly important one. There is definitely no question about the matter. The position of injured workers is being substantially improved here today, because even 15% is a very welcome extra for anyone, even if it is only, as in this case, a non-recurring increase for those people injured before 1977. It is a pity that we could not decide here today that this should become an annual event, i.e. that it be reviewed annually. We are fully aware of the fact that the increased cost of living and the exceptional circumstances of pensioners, particularly this class of pensioners, could land them in a difficult position. These people no longer find themselves in a position to compete on the labour market. They are then, from sheer necessity, dependent on pensions for their livelihood, and this is definitely not an enviable position for anyone in which to find himself. I am of the opinion that the compensation aspect of this workmen’s compensation legislation should be regularly adjusted. If possible it should be looked at annually, because the responsibilities and demands on these people change daily, and are definitely not improving, but are continually becoming worse. Therefore, my appeal to the hon. the Minister is that he should continually pay attention to this aspect. We support the Second Reading of the Bill and should like to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will pay attention to this matter every year.

Mr. Speaker, as could have been expected, there was agreement in the House about these amendments. Although the amendments are not, at first glance, very major amendments, they are nevertheless very important amendments for the people concerned. Therefore I am grateful for the support I am now receiving in this regard from both sides of the House.

I feel very strongly for, and am very sensitive to, the needs of the people who need our help in this regard. Therefore my reply to hon. members who pointed out that we should look at the matter more frequently, and if necessary, in greater depth, is: Of course, I am always prepared to listen to any suggestion. Therefore I should like to thank hon. members and promise that we will see to what extent we shall be able to improve on the present situation in the future.

It is cause for gratitude that it has been possible to bring about pension improvements of 15%. One may not think so, but in the times in which we live, 15% is very important for people, and therefore I am grateful that this is possible today. I know there has been disappointment about the fact that such an improvement did not take place earlier, but one is nevertheless grateful to be able to announce this today by way of this legislation.

I want to assure hon. members that the institutions concerned, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and his staff, are very sympathetic towards the people affected by this legislation. I am sure they feel the same way as I do about the matter and will in future look after the interests of our people with the greatest sympathy.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr.

Speaker, I move—

The main objective of this Bill is to eliminate certain discriminatory provisions in regard to Blacks and to redraft certain existing sections to facilitate the administration of the Act owing to the fact that the relevant provisions regarding payment of the various benefits are grouped together. The remaining amendments that are being proposed will generally improve the administration of the Act, bring about improvements to certain definitions which are not clear and eliminate certain shortcomings at present in the Act. With a view to elucidating the proposed amendments I have already tabled an explanatory memorandum. Hon. members opposite have probably persued this memorandum.

As far as the proposed amendments are concerned, I should like to furnish the following details. The Unemployment Insurance Board, on which both employers’ organizations and the trade unions are represented, appointed a sub-committee some time ago to inquire into the bottlenecks present in the Act and to make recommendations to the board. Last year the Unemployment Insurance Board considered these recommendations and most of them were accepted unanimously. I am pleased that there is complete unanimity on the part of the board in regard to this matter.

Apart from the consequential amendments which have already been set out in the explanatory memorandum I should like now to deal briefly with the various clauses contained in the Bill.

The definitions in clause 1 are being amended to bring the wording thereof into line with existing legislation.

Section 2(2) excludes certain persons from contributing to the fund.

As far as clause 2(a) of the Bill is concerned, those persons who enter the Republic under contract, i.e. all contract workers, and who are required to return to the country from which they entered the Republic, are excluded from contributing in terms of the Act. The exclusion is not regarded as being wide enough and, as the Act reads at present, certain persons who have to leave the Republic and go to a country other than that from which they entered the Republic, have by law to contribute to the fund although no benefits are payable to them when they leave the Republic. The proposed amendment will rectify this position. It is unfair that people who contribute to the fund should not derive any benefit from it.

I now come to clause 2(b) and (c). Blacks who are mainly or exclusively employed in a rural area and those who earn less than R546 per annum, are also excluded as contributors. I have seen fit to do away with this discrimination against Black workers because there is no longer any justification for it. The proposed amendments give effect to this.

Hon. members will also note in clause 2(c) of the Bill that a further amendment is being proposed to section 2(2)(d). In the said section the maximum earnings are also laid down according to which a person qualifies as a contributor—at present the amount is R8 400 a year. Over the past 12 years the Act has already had to be amended on five occasions to raise this amount because of the continual increase in earnings. We can expect these to increase at an even faster rate in future. I feel that the present method of periodically increasing the maximum by way of legislation causes unnecessary delay before the recommended new figure becomes operative. This has the effect of decreasing the efficiency of the amendment. This problem will be overcome by amending the maximum amount by way of proclamation.

The purpose of the amendments contained in clause 2(2)(d), (e) and (f) is to bring these into line with existing legislation, to remove the discrimination against student nurses, to define more clearly “an officer of Parliament” and to delete section 2(2)(q) which no longer serves any purpose.

As far as clause 3 of the Bill is concerned, the Act does not allow the fund to retain funds to which it is not entitled. This gives rise to problems from time to time as it is sometimes impossible to make repayments, for instance, when an employee to whom money is due leaves his employment and his address is unknown. This amendment will facilitate the administration of the Act and remove those problems which may be encountered in this respect.

Section 9(1) of the Act, which is dealt with in clause 5, enables me to use those funds made available for the purpose by Parliament—that is, advances to the fund—for, inter alia, the payment of benefits. In terms of the proposed amendment such funds may also be used for the payment of moneys to the dependants of deceased contributors.

The amendment in clause 7 of the Bill will enable me to alter the area of jurisdiction of an unemployment benefit committee. This too will facilitate the administration of the Act.

I should like now to explain clauses 8, 9, 10(c) and 11. Section 17(b) of the Act provides that all applications for benefits refused by a claims officer must be reviewed by the relevant unemployment benefit committee, while section 21(1) provides that any person who feels he has been prejudiced by a decision of such a committee may appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Board within 14 days. Section 26(2)(d) in its turn provides that a claims officer has to submit all applications for benefits that he has refused to the relevant unemployment benefit committee, and section 27(1) provides that any person may appeal against the decision of a claims officer to the unemployment benefit committee within 21 days. As hon. members will note, there is an overlapping of work here because people who are not satisfied with the decision of a claims officer can in fact appeal in terms of section 27 of the Act, and sections 17(b) and 26(2)(d) are therefore superfluous. Furthermore, I think it is fair that the period within which an appeal to the relevant committee and the board may be noted should be extended to 30 days instead of the present 21 and 14 days respectively.

The amendments in clause 10(a), (b) and (d) will facilitate the administration of the Act.

Problems are encountered in the implementation of section 29(6)(b) of the Act in regard to the determination of an employee’s earnings. Clause 12 rectifies this position and contributions are payable at the full scale in respect of a contributor’s normal weekly earnings.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to the most important amendments in the Bill. In the first place they deal with the various benefits payable and in the second place with the making of regulations.

Firstly, then, there is the payment of benefits. At present the payment of benefits is covered by nine different sections. In order to facilitate the administration of the Act it has been decided to redraft sections 34 to 38 and to repeal sections 39 to 42. Clauses 14 to 19 of the Bill give effect to this. I want to put it very clearly to hon. members that the present provisions of the relevant articles are not being altered. In only a few instances are new provisions being inserted which will facilitate administration and also be to the advantage of beneficiaries.

As hon. members are aware, we have to overhaul the Act to improve administration so as to provide a better service to unemployed contributors. This can only be to the advantage of everybody. I think here particularly of the claims officers in my department who are working under great pressure during this present period of unemployment. I think too of those unemployed persons for whom we shall try to provide an even better service when it comes to the payment of benefits.

As hon. members will note, the new section 34—that is clause 14 of the Bill— now contains all the general provisions which refer to the payment of benefits. In clause 15 the provisions regarding unemployment benefits are set out; in clause 16 those in connection with illness benefits; in clause 17 maternity benefits; and in clause 18 payments to the dependants of deceased contributors. I should like to throw some light on the new provisions that have been inserted.

Firstly, there are the illness benefits. Should a contributor in receipt of illness benefits move to an area falling under the jurisdiction of another claims officer, he has to submit a new application. This gives rise to delay in the payment of further benefits. The same principles apply to the payment of maternity benefits. This problem is now being eliminated. Furthermore, there is a waiting period of three weeks before a start is made with the payment of illness benefits. This waiting period is now being shortened to two weeks. Another person will now also be able to apply for benefits on behalf of somebody who is seriously ill, which is not the position at present and so causes much hardship for such a sick person.

Secondly, in the case of maternity benefits provision is now being made for a woman who qualifies for maternity benefits to receive benefits for 26 weeks whereas now these are only payable from the date of application. Many women have forfeited certain maternity benefits because they did not apply for them immediately they became unemployed as a result of their pregnancy.

In the third place the Unemployment Insurance Board can authorize a claims officer to award extended benefits in a case of unemployment and illness benefits. This has the advantage of enabling claims officers to deal with such applications immediately and this will also facilitate the work of the Unemployment Insurance Board. As far as the making of regulations is concerned, sections 62 and 63 are being combined because it is now unnecessary to have two different sections in the Act in terms of which regulations can be made. This amendment which appears in clauses 30 and 31 will also help to improve the administration of the Act.

As far as clause 22 is concerned, the position is that cases do occur in which unemployed contributors, after having applied for benefits, take on work at a small basic wage plus a commission which increases their total income to a large extent. Such contributors have then applied for benefits in terms of section 48 of the Act because commission is not calculated as part of earnings. In this way the fund has suffered a loss because such a person is in receipt of good earnings and in addition is also drawing benefits. This position is now being rectified.

There is an administrative shortcoming in the Act which is being eliminated by clause 24 in order to enable the Secretary to obtain and/or sell movable as well as immovable property.

In order to give a more complete picture of the activities of the Unemployment Insurance Fund in its annual report, clause 25 provides that details of payments to the dependants of deceased contributors have also to be given in the annual report.

The proposed amendment which deals with the appointment requirements of inspectors in clause 26 will bring the position into line with that in other Acts administered by the department.

I should like now to deal with clause 27. The Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, does not apply to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and problems can arise when losses to the fund have to be recovered. Fortunately, we have not as yet been in a position where this sort of thing has been necessary. I am sure hon. members will agree that such a provision is necessary in an Act of this nature.

Clause 28 provides for the deletion of section 60(5) of the Act Because we have been operating under a decimalization system for many years and sterling has fallen into disuse, it has become necessary to delete section 60(5).

Clause 32 provides for the deletion of section 64(1). Persons who have been excluded as contributors in terms of section 2(4) or (5) of the Act and whose benefits in terms of section 17(3) of the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Act of 1949 were limited to a period after exclusion equal to the period during which he was a contributor prior to such date of exclusion, will in terms of this amendment no longer be subject to that time limit I wish to point out to hon. members that there are still exclusions and they continue to occur, particularly in terms of section 2(5), and consequently these persons are discriminated against in terms of section 64(1) of the Act. It is accordingly being proposed that section 64(1) be deleted.

Mr. Speaker, in the main those are the envisaged amendments and I trust that they will receive the support of the House. As I said initially, a sub-committee was appointed, a sub-committee which reported to the Board after long deliberations. What I am in fact proposing here today is therefore a decision which comes from that source and in regard to which there is complete unanimity. I also think that as the board has consented to these changes after thorough inquiry and we are now effecting them, the House will do well to accept the proposals which are before us. I trust too that we shall have the support of both sides of the House for them.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years we have noticed in this House that a number of very important pieces of legislation have been introduced, measures pertaining to labour legislation. I believe I must state to the hon. the Minister that once again we are grateful to him and to his department for the changes which have been introduced in this particular Bill now before the House. This speaks very well of the work that has been done in his department and, obviously, of the leadership he has given in this department since he assumed these responsibilities.

When one remembers the two very important commissions—one that has already made its report, while the other one is, I believe, expected to do so any day now— namely the Riekert Commission and the Wiehahn Commission, one expects that there will be even further changes to the existing legislation. All this is to be welcomed. When we come to legislation which affects those who are unemployed, one realizes that this is a particularly important aspect of labour legislation. It is perhaps never so important as it is in the contemporary climate regarding unemployment. In the Survey of Unemployment Prospects for January, February and March 1979, we have a further indication that, whilst all of us were hoping very much that 1979 would see an upward movement in the economy, that it would obviously mean that more and more people will be employed, and a lowering of the number of those who have been unemployed for some time, this is indeed not the case. Nevertheless, I believe a realistic estimate suggests to us that there is going to be no significant improvement in the unemployment picture. One hopes that it is not going to be a significant deterioration. Whilst it is true that the Department of Statistics has indicated a decline in the number of unemployed I believe it is important to remember the warning issued by Dr. Brand, the economic adviser to the hon. the Prime Minister, that the apparent drop in unemployment should be interpreted with caution and that it could not be accepted as a firm new trend. With that as a background I have tried to emphasize just how important any legislation dealing with unemployment must be in this House.

We will support this legislation. In my judgment it is very much a piece of legislation to be worked at more effectively during the Committee Stage. There are a number of very, very important changes that have been made, and I am going to refer only to a few of these changes, because if we are going to debate some of these clauses during the Committee Stage, it is only fair to give some indication of one or two queries which we have.

Referring to the definitions, I want to state immediately that these are to be welcomed. In keeping with some of the changes brought about here last year by the hon. the Minister, we welcome once again the acceptance by the Government now of the term “Black” instead of “Bantu”. We welcome this change in definition as it appears in clause 1 of the Bill.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, the hon. the Minister himself has referred to the removal of discrimination, discrimination which cannot be justified. I want to emphasize that in particular we welcome the deletion of the relevant words which occur in section 2(d). That is something which we have been asking for for some time now and I believe that this is a very important improvement in the legislation. This refers to Blacks who are working in rural areas and those whose income does not exceed R546 a year. I believe this is to be welcomed.

It is interesting to notice in the same clause something which ought to be the standard that we have in this country, and that is that you do not only have removal of discrimination against Blacks, but actually also removal of discrimination against certain people who work in a particular profession. In other words, if it is the hon. the Minister’s approach to remove discrimination against any one irrespective of his colour or profession, we will support him very strongly indeed, as discrimination ought to be abolished not merely as it concerns Blacks.

When we come to clauses 8, 9 and 10, which the hon. the Minister understandably took together, I want to emphasize that we have some reservations. One can understand the need to tidy up the administration of this Fund and the appointment of claims officers obviously makes good sense. However, we would like to make sure that we are not going to have a situation where one particular official can make a decision about an application for assistance now that the review board has been scrapped and that he can only get that on the grounds of appeal. There are a great number of unemployed who haven’t the faintest idea of the legislation, not any realization of what their rights are. Therefore I hope that the Department of Labour will ensure, wherever possible—and obviously one hopes this will apply to employers as well—that the unemployed will have the fullest access to what their rights are. For example, I would like to know from the hon. the Minister from what level is this claims officer going to be. Is it going to be someone with the necessary responsibility and awareness of the very real problems of the unemployed? I am asking this because up till now there has always been a review board. Therefore, if a decision was taken and it was an incorrect decision, that particular board could review. The hon. the Minister quite rightly refers to the fact that in clause 27 there is provision made for appeal. The only point I want to make is that there is a very vast difference between a review board, where every single application which is being turned down is reviewed, and an appeal board, where the onus lies squarely on the unemployed applicant. Irrespective of their colour, an unemployed is someone who deserves the greatest sympathy if he is out of work through no fault of his own. Therefore it would be a great tragedy if, simply arising out of his own ignorance, he is not advised of his rights.

We all know that there are a great number of unemployed workers who are not aware of their rights and who have not even up to this day made application even when they are in a position to do so. That is the only point I wish to make in this respect. I hope we are not going to have the situation where the appointment of claims officers is going to act against the best interests of the unemployed, even though it acts in the best interests of good administration as far as the department is concerned. I hope the hon. the Minister will personally respond to this so that we can perhaps take the issue up more effectively during the Committee Stage.

The other point I wish to raise during this stage is that I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he and his department, in the light of the long-term unemployment which a number of workers have endured in recent times, have given any consideration to the extension of the period for receiving benefits, i.e. the period of 26 weeks. The reason why I ask this from the hon. the Minister is because the greatest problem we have in terms of unemployment are not those who are seasonally unemployed or who are unemployed for a short term only, but those who are unemployed for a lengthy period of time. Some consultants are of the opinion that the longer a man or woman is unemployed, the more difficult it is to get that person back to work, because they get out of the discipline of working. That is one problem. The other problem is that those who are unemployed for longer than 26 weeks are falling on very hard times indeed. The hon. the Minister knows that I have made appeals from time to time for special emergency relief to be given to the unemployed in these circumstances. I raise the issue with the hon. the Minister now and would like to hear his personal comments on that.

Another problem that I want to put before the hon. the Minister—I am not sure of my facts here—I want to put in the form of a question. Clause 15 of the Bill deals with section 35 of Act 30 of 1966. The proposed new section 35(3) reads—

I should like to mention that I have heard quite a lot of comment from people that there have been very long delays in certain cases. Because there are so many unemployed and because the relative officials have a tremendous amount of work to do, one can understand if there is some delay. But when a person is unemployed and has a family to care for, one can appreciate that he finds it very difficult to understand why there should be these delays. No one can expect that payment be made immediately, but I hope very much indeed that if delays are taking place they will be reduced to the absolute minimum. The proposed new section 35(5)(a) reads—

I should like to remind the House that there has been some considerable dissatisfaction expressed at the labour courts as they exist in South Africa today. Some attempts have already been made—inquiries have been set up and improvements have been brought about in this regard—but I hope that here, once again, if the onus lies on the unemployed to visit these places, that the best possible facilities and opportunities will be made available to the unemployed. In regard to the definition of “suitable work” there is one question that has always concerned me and perhaps others as well. Very often it happens that an unemployed person who receives benefits and has been contributing into unemployment funds is told that there is another type of work which they can do in the absence of any other work. That, on the face of it, seems very reasonable. But when the work offered, for example, as domestic servants and farm labourers, is the only option given, then bearing in mind that this is not covered by unemployment insurance, that worker is being penalized. That person was employed in an area where he paid his contribution, but he cannot get any other work in that area—through no fault of his own. He is then told that suitable work is only available in an area which is not covered by unemployment insurance. He thus moves in a vicious circle and I hope that the department concerned will bear this in mind.

Finally, with regard to this provision, I find that a considerable improvement in maternity benefits has been made in that a person who applies for these benefits and then moves does not have to make fresh application. This is very sensible. But this does not seem to apply to the normal unemployed person who is receiving contributions. The hon. member for Constantia has had correspondence with the hon. the Minister and the department about a specific case where an unemployed person who is recognized as such is given the usual benefits—to which she has a definite right—but then moves in order to live with her family to assist them in these very difficult times. She is told that she has to make fresh application. Let us assume that she has moved from East London to Cape Town. She then makes this fresh application and then she is told that because she has not paid the contributions during the time she has been unemployed her benefits fall away. It seems that there is an anomaly here as the department has already ruled that she is no longer eligible for those benefits in those circumstances. Will the hon. the Minister please tell us whether this was a misinterpretation of the law by the official concerned and whether provision is being made in this Bill that if a person moves from one area to another he or she is not penalized as a direct result? I do not expect the hon. the Minister to reply to this during the Second Reading debate, but I give him notice of this matter so that when we come to the relevant clause during the Committee Stage he may tell us something in this regard.

I reiterate that we welcome this new legislation. We believe that it is a considerable improvement and that the people concerned, viz. the unemployed and those who seek to administer this Fund, are going to benefit, the unemployed from the reduction in delays and the department itself in that the officials can do their work more expeditiously. I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his department for the explanatory memorandum. The only complaint I have is that I only received this memorandum this afternoon. If I had received it on Friday it would have saved me a tremendous amount of work over the weekend. But perhaps the work did me some good. Sir, we have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to support the Second Reading of this Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill on behalf of this side of the House. One is also grateful that the hon. member for Pinelands is beginning to see the light and is supporting the hon. the Minister in his introduction of this Bill.

You are now doing what we asked you to do.

It is also very clear that the sub-committee of the Unemployment Insurance Board which is of course composed of the representations of employee and employer organizations made a valuable contribution when it reviewed and revised the whole question of unemployment insurance legislation. I think what they also had in mind was to streamline the legislation which has been in operation now for a considerable number of years so that delays will be obviated in the future. I think one of the main complaints of contributors to the fund in the past has been that when they applied for the benefits in terms of the legislation it took some time before those benefits were paid on them. I don’t think we can get away from that To the extent to which unemployment has increased in the past few years, the work resting on the shoulders of the department and the staff whose responsibility it is to implement the legislation has increased. It is therefore perhaps to be expected that there will be longer delays.

Let us look at the amendments before us. If they are implemented I think we shall succeed, in the first instance, in streamlining the Act to a very great extent. I am of the opinion that the administrative snags, delays and red-tape that may perhaps have been necessary, will now be eliminated. I believe, therefore, that once this amending Bill has been passed, matters will in future be expedited to the benefit of the contributors to this fund.

I wish to draw attention to a few of the amendments contained in this Bill and deal with some of these aspects. I want to deal with the first category of amendments, namely the removal of certain discriminatory measures. The hon. member for Pinelands has in fact referred to this. He pointed out that in terms of existing legislation a Black worker earning less than R546 per annum does not enjoy any benefits in terms of that legislation. Now that that section of the legislation is being deleted those people will also be considered. However, I think that when the existing Act was introduced, it was necessary to provide for that Personally I have my doubts as to how many people will in fact benefit by the deletion of this portion of the Act because as far as I know there is no industrial agreement providing for a wage determination of R10,50 per week which is the equivalent of R546 per annum. I do not think therefore that it will have the marked effect to which the hon. member has referred, except perhaps for the political implications flowing from it.

One is pleased that a stage has been reached where the measure could be amended to such an extent. Although the question of the maximum notch is not a discriminatory one, as I am dealing with the matter, I want to link this argument to it I think an important amendment is the one which provides that the State President may raise the maximum notch by proclamation. As the hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech, in the past we had to come to Parliament with amending legislation in order to raise the notch in line with the increase in salary scales, something which of course occasionally caused delays and which excluded contributors who formerly belonged to the fund. We welcome this because when in future the State President issues a proclamation raising the notch, the Act can be implemented so much sooner to the benefit of the workers thus affected.

Another very important amendment is the deletion of the definition of “rural area”. In the past certain workers employed in a rural area were not covered by this legislation. In future they too will be covered and derive benefit from the Act because they will also be contributing to the fund.

I want to refer to another important aspect. In the past persons employed by provincial administrations, hospital boards and so forth and who were contributing to a provincial pension fund were excluded from the Act Among others, there was a provision in terms of which student nurses were excluded. Owing to the fact that the pension laws of our country have been amended in such a way that those employees no longer contribute to the pension funds of provincial administrations but to the Government pension fund, it is now being provided that irrespective of whether or not student nurses are contributing to such a Government pension fund, in terms of this legislation they will in future no longer be excluded. That is another discriminatory measure that is being done away with.

I want now to deal for a moment with the amendment contained in clause 32 to which the hon. the Minister has also referred. This also deals with a discriminatory measure. In the past the position has been that the employees of a certain category of employers enjoyed benefits in terms of the old Unemployment Insurance Act. But they could apply for exclusion. This referred to certain town councils—I think there were 16 or 17 of them. Black teachers fell into this category as did blind persons and certain forestry workers. If they contributed to a certain pension fund they were excluded by law. However, the Act was amended at a later stage in respect of those persons who enjoyed certain benefits in terms of the Act I want to give a practical example. Let us take the case of a person who had worked for a town council from 1950 to 1955 and had contributed to a fund that gave him certain benefits. Supposing that council decided in 1955 to be excluded from that fund. In that event there was a provision in terms of which he could retain those benefits provided that he made use of them should he become unemployed within the ensuing five years. The deletion of the relevant provision means that those employers will in future retain their benefits irrespective of when they become unemployed. That is a very important discriminatory measure that is now being done away with.

There is another category of amendments to which I should like to refer briefly. In my view these are also very important amendments.

I refer to the administrative amendments that are being effected in order to streamline the implementation of this legislation, something that I think will also allay many of the fears expressed by the hon. member for Pinelands. He was particularly concerned about the delays that can take place. I want to refer to the amendment which empowers the Secretary of the Department to appoint a claims officer and to demarcate his area of jurisdiction. Viewed particularly in the light of the increase in the number of unemployed I am sure there is nobody more suitable than the Secretary of the Department to decide whether a claims officer should be appointed in a certain area. It is for him to decide whether it is an absolute necessity that such a claims officer be appointed and he can then stipulate his area of jurisdiction in order largely to relieve the pressure that exists. I think this will greatly assist in eliminating delays.

Another important amendment is the one that provides that in future the hon. the Minister can determine the area of jurisdiction of a benefit committee. I think that is necessary as well. That can facilitate administrative arrangements in particular.

I want now to refer to a third very important amendment which I think will help to ease the position and which is accommodating. The hon. member for Pinelands has also referred to it. In the past the position has been that when a person who was receiving maternity or illness benefits moved from the area of jurisdiction of one claims officer to that of another, such person had to apply anew to receive those benefits but now they will be paid automatically. I think that is a great concession.

I also want to refer to another aspect which I feel is important. The position in the past has been that when a person was receiving illness benefits in terms of the Act, he could apply to the board for an extension of the period during which he could receive illness benefits; the board can now delegate that power to a claims officer. I regard that as another very important concession to the contributors to this fund.

These are all important administrative arrangements that are being rectified by this Bill. A great deal of red tape will be eliminated by these amendments in future.

I come now to a third category which deals with the closing of loopholes in the existing Act that could give rise to offences of malpractices. A contributor to the fund may become unemployed but be placed in other employment immediately afterwards. The hon. member also referred to this. He may find the work that has been found for him unsuitable and moreover be earning 50% less than he earned previously. The benefits which he can receive from the fund will also be adjusted accordingly. However, there is also an anomaly in the existing Act because the benefits to which he is entitled from the fund are calculated on his wage or salary scale. For example, any commission he may earn is not taken into account. There have been malpractices as a result of all sorts of loopholes. For example, people have been employed at a low wage but have received a reasonable commission and in that way have misused the fund. I think the Bill effects an important improvement as far as this is concerned.

Another important matter to which I want to refer is the fact that the Exchequer and Audit Act will in future apply to the Unemployment Insurance Fund so that if incorrect or wrong payments are made it will be possible to recoup any loss by following the procedures prescribed in the Exchequer and Audit Act.

I want to refer to two benefits which I regard as being important. The hon. member for Pinelands also referred to them briefly. The one is the question of maternity benefits. Let me give a practical example. Previously a woman could only enjoy maternity benefits from the date on which she applied for them. For example, if she applied for them three weeks subsequent to her confinement she was only entitled to five weeks’ benefits in terms of the existing Act; but in future she will be entitled to the full 26 weeks’ benefits. I regard this as a very important amendment in this Bill.

I want to refer to another amendment which I think is also important. When a person applied for illness benefits there was a waiting period of three weeks but the proposed legislation shortens that period to two weeks.

We on this side of the House regard it as a special privilege to support the Second Reading of this Bill because, as we know, the Government has always looked to the interests of the workers. We know that the Unemployment Insurance Act has given rise to many problems in the past. It was even suspended for a certain period of its existence. One is grateful that it is possible to apply it so smoothly now and I am sure that this amending Bill will enable it to be applied even more smoothly in the future.

In conclusion I want to appeal to the Opposition, the Official Opposition in particular. They take pleasure in being able to point to discriminatory features in the labour legislation of the Government. I wonder whether in future the hon. member for Pinelands will be so kind—I know him to be a reasonable and friendly person—as to announce with loud trumpet blasts that the hon. the Minister of Labour and the Government are removing discriminatory measures from our labour legislation.

Mr. Speaker, following on what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark had to say about the hon. member for Pinelands blowing the trumpet for him, I should just like to say that we on this side of the House believe that he is quite competent to blow his own trumpet.

The amending legislation before the House is one of those things which appears in the South African economic and political fields where it is sometimes difficult to discover just what legislative measures should be adopted for unemployment in what is essentially a private, free-enterprise society. I do not think South Africa can stand accused of having a socialistic type of economy. In fact, we are proud of the honours won in the economic field in South Africa over the past few years. We notice for instance, from recent reports, that employment is once again increasing in countries such as Belgium, Germany and France at this very moment. I think we have a very proud record in the economic and employment fields in South Africa, primarily due to the fact that we are a private, free-enterprise system in which the initiative of the private individual is rewarded and he is therefore expected to look after himself when he comes upon hard times. It is against that type of background that I should particularly like to compliment the hon. the Minister and his staff on the refinements and improvements they have brought about with the amending legislation, this having been done without introducing elements of socialism into our private free-enterprise economic system.

In particular we should like to welcome the improvements brought about in the maternity and sickness benefit fields. We also believe this is going to be of particular relevance to the Black worker. There are increasing numbers of Black females entering industry today, and we note from the statistics available to us that the population explosion is really occurring in this particular sector. I think previously these people suffered tremendous hardships once they started a family, left their employment and, at the very time when they most needed benefits of this kind, were unable to obtain them.

We should also like to thank the hon. the Minister and his staff for providing us with the explanatory memorandum. I think this always goes a long way towards eliminating difficulties in communication although, obviously, we would possibly always still differ on principle. In welcoming this amending legislation, we should like to say that we shall probably be supporting most of the amendments the hon. the Minister has proposed. However, there is also an element of disappointment in what we find missing in this particular Bill. I think it has been brought to the hon. the Minister’s attention, and if not to his personal attention, then certainly to that of his staff, that with the increasing extension of the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Fund to a greater sector of the working population in South Africa, it is by implication to be found that more and more people who enter the unemployment insurance benefit field will not be able to help themselves in the sense of understanding precisely what they are entitled to when they become unemployed. We have recently seen the rise of what I would term “honest brokers” who now want to establish businesses so as to invite people who become unemployed to pay them a visit, and for a certain percentage fee, a fee which is not always specified, they are prepared to act on the behalf of these unfortunate individuals to help them obtain the benefits they are entitled to through the Unemployment Insurance Fund. We have found a rapid rise in this type of occupation which I do not believe always operates to the benefit of the unemployed.

I should particularly like to commend the action taken by certain organizations, such as the underground officials of the mining industry, who, through their journal, made it known to workers what benefits they were entitled to and therefore, successfully I hope, discouraged them from falling victim to dishonest broker types. I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he seriously consider the possibility, he should certainly investigate the possibility, of introducing certain legislation under the sector dealing with claims officers, etc., to curtail the activities of the dishonest broker who so often acts as a parasite on these unfortunate people. In that sense we are rather disappointed that this particular matter has not been dealt with in the amending legislation.

Then, I should also like to indicate to the hon. the Minister that the amendment affecting, what he has termed, the elimination of discriminatory legislation, is something which we especially welcome. By the amendment to paragraph 2 it now means that a very large sector of the work force in South Africa, viz. the agricultural workers, will fall within the ambit of the unemployment insurance fund. If this is so—the hon. the Minister did not mention it during his Second Reading speech—and if this is the extent to which it is going to affect the agricultural sector, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that in essence this could well cost the agricultural sector R1 million a year in contributions. Now, we are not complaining or disagreeing with the principle of extending unemployment insurance benefits to a sector which was previously excluded, viz. the non-contract farm worker and the non-contract mining worker. We welcome the principle of extending it to them. However, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that we should not always assume that the logical extension of a benefit scheme or of an insurance scheme to other sectors of the economy is necessarily the correct answer. I believe it is necessary to study in detail the effect and the benefits which the extension of this particular type of scheme will have on, for instance, the agricultural sector. If one examines the employment patterns in the agricultural sector it is evident that a large number of people who would now come in the ambit of this legislation may not necessarily be able to receive benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, despite the fact that they are to become contributors.

One thinks, for instance, of the possibility that seasonal workers in the fruit industry who are employed only for certain periods of time—for limited times; less than 13 weeks a year—will have to become contributors to the fund. However, because of the 13-week clause of employment they may never receive benefit from this insurance fund. At the same time we note, against this background sketch of the agricultural worker, that we have an employment pattern in the agricultural industry which is radically different to that in the industrialized or urban areas. For instance, we find the establishment of the family unit in the agricultural sector, where the whole family becomes part and parcel of the employment pattern. We also find that the unemployed figure for persons who have been discharged in these particular circumstances, is probably considerably less than, for instance, in the highly industrialized sector where a man is dismissed from his work by one factory, but still lives in the urban area and is, therefore, dependent upon an unemployment insurance fund. If, by the change to be brought about by clause 2, it means that the workers in the agricultural sector are now to become fairly substantial contributors to a fund which is already very substantial, I want to refer to the figures in the recent report reflecting that the Fund presently possesses assets in excess of R214 million, having increased its assets during the last year by more than R2 million as well. I think it is incumbent upon the hon. the Minister and his staff to undertake a thorough investigation into whether the extension of the benefits of a scheme designed essentially for the industrialized worker is really going to be of benefit both to the industry and the workers in sectors such as the agricultural sector.

We have quite a number of points regarding detail which we wish to raise during the Committee Stage, but in principle we will obviously support this Bill. The amendments it seeks to bring about are definitely a streamlining and the introduction of a greater degree of efficiency in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I am certain that many people outside this House are going to welcome the improved benefits.

We notice that the cost of administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund has increased quite substantially during the last year, but in relation to the size of the Fund I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his staff in keeping the actual percentage costs of administration as low as they have.

On that note I will leave the matter now. We will come back during the Committee Stage to the detail of certain clauses when we will discuss the matter further with the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, we can really talk about “peace in the Assembly” this afternoon even if we cannot talk about “peace on earth”. I am not surprised at the two Opposition parties that have taken part in the debate so far supporting this measure because with few exceptions every amendment is an improvement of the principal Act. This is particularly so in the case of certain discriminatory provisions which applied to certain categories of workers, provisions which will now disappear. However, I want to make it clear that those discriminatory measure were introduced in the past not merely to discriminate but because of economic exigencies. They were also introduced for practical reasons because, inter alia, they affected migrant labour in particular, something which in most instances is very difficult to localize.

The hon. member for Pinelands has quite rightly pointed out that discrimination was not being applied to people only on the basis of race but also, inter alia, to White student nurses and that this discrimination was now being removed. The hon. member also said that the Government should do more to make workers aware of their rights and privileges in respect of these new benefits but the hon. member for Durban North was more realistic in that respect in saying that in all probability employers would have to be compelled to make their employees aware of them. He raised an important issue, namely, that certain people make money by exploiting the ignorance of employees regarding their rights under this unemployment insurance legislation. For a consideration they act as counsellors to those employees. Should this practice assume greater proportions it will probably become necessary for the hon. the Minister to take a long and serious look at the matter.

I should like to discuss a few of the amendments, albeit briefly. A great deal has already been said about them and we agree with one another. It has become almost a tradition in this House that when we agree we have much more to say than when we disagree. Be that as it may, this Bill contains certain very important improvements, e.g. clause 10 which amends section 26 of the principal Act Provision is made there for benefits and allowances and “allowances” means the allowances to be paid to the family of a deceased contributor. Reference has repeatedly been made to the fact that maternity benefits will be made retrospective in future. This is a very important provision and can only be welcomed.

Because of these amendments the principal Act will now be much more streamlined and should operate more effectively. It therefore gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues on both sides of the House in supporting this legislation wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I just want to say that it is of course also difficult for a Minister because when there is so much agreement he does not know how to thank hon. members for agreeing with him. I realize that in many respects this legislation is of a very technical nature. But I should like to express my thanks for the positive contributions from both sides of the House. A few hon. members here and there did not fully grasp the meaning of the provisions but that is not so very important. The most important thing is that there has been agreement on the main points of the legislation and for this one is also grateful. Hon. members on that side have also informed me that they will be referring to certain aspects of the legislation again during the Committee Stage and I am prepared to talk to them again about it then.

The hon. member for Pinelands raised a few matters to which I want to reply. The first aspect the hon. member raised referred to the period of 26 weeks that is being considered. A contributor can receive benefits for 26 weeks if he is unemployed but there is some misunderstanding in this regard. It seems as if the hon. member is also under the misapprehension—and I want to rectify this— that it is a strict rule that the period is 26 weeks and no longer. In certain cases the board can make exceptions and I want to give the hon. member the assurance that in many cases the board actually does so. There are literally hundreds of people for whom exception is made in this connection and who then receive benefits for a longer period. So exceptions can be made and they are in fact made. What is more I believe that concessions will continue to be made in this regard in future. I want therefore to rectify this matter because I am also aware that there is some misapprehension on the part of the public in this regard.

Another mistake the hon. member made was in regard to the question of delay. Delay in any society is always a danger when one is working against time and when a large number of cases have to be dealt with by too few available staff. I am satisfied in my own mind that as far as the time is concerned which is taken in dealing with these matters, in the light of the exceptional circumstances and particularly in view of the pressures which exist, there is not a great deal of delay. I know that there is impatience if somebody is unemployed because a person in that position expects his application to be processed finally within a few days so that he can get his money. But that does not happen because it simply does take longer. The hon. member probably raised this matter just to make sure that there were no unnecessary delays. I want to assure him that there are no unnecessary delays in this connection.

The hon. member also referred to the question of an offer of work in the case of an unemployed person. The hon. member was referring to a situation in which an unemployed person is referred by the department to a certain place where there may be work for him. In my view there has also been a misunderstanding in this case and perhaps a somewhat unfair reproach. The hon. member alleged that a person who had been trained in a certain way could be offered work which he might not understand at all or which was of a type far below that to which he was accustomed; in other words, he could not adapt himself to the work. But that is not what happens.

I do not want to say that here and there might not be people who are sent to do work they do not like. One can appreciate, however, that this sort of thing can happen from time to time. Unemployed persons are consistently sent to do the kind of work that suits their circumstances. For instance, it would be unreasonable to send a manual labourer to work at a trade where he would be out of his depth and therefore be unable to do the work. So an attempt is made to accommodate people in the sort of work to which they can adapt themselves because if this is not done these efforts would be useless. It is of course terribly difficult to accommodate people when the demand for a certain type of work is high and the availability of such work is limited. This always creates problems. It may happen that there are thousands of unemployed people who require the same work whereas what one can offer them is inadequate with a view to their numbers. One can therefore not keep abreast of the availability of employment. But we can talk about this again later.

I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark for his contribution because he answered quite a few of the questions in regard to the Bill. The hon. member referred, inter alia, to the amount of R546 which we regard as the lowest figure at present. But that provision is now being repealed. The hon. member said that there were probably not many people working for that sort of salary. That, of course, is so. How many people in South Africa today still work for a salary of R546 a year? Sir, it does not happen often. With the increase in the rates of pay for labour in South Africa—unfortunately I do not have the figures—I would be surprised if there were still many such people. But whether there are still many or not there may be people in our society who feel that this is discriminatory and a sort of injustice. So whether there is one such person or 10 000 or 100 000 such people we are now eliminating this provision.

The hon. member for Durban North spoke about “honest brokers”, people who represent themselves in the labour market to be an office or person or body or place which helps people get work and to fill in their forms, etc. The word “honest” has been used. I do not want to be unfriendly but we are nevertheless aware of many organizations which ostensibly seek work for people but which should cease these activities. The department gives the best advice through its organizations. A lot of trouble is taken to put all the things necessary for an unemployed worker in writing. Everything he has to do is spelt out for him. All the unemployed person has to do is read what has been written out for him. If he does not understand it he must get somebody to explain it to him. If such a person approaches the department the department goes to a lot of trouble. In recent years the department has gone to a lot of trouble to be of assistance to unemployed persons, to give them advice, to tell them where to go and how the system works and to explain how the Act operates. Sir, this is a big task. We must use our influence and tell the people concerned that if they want good advice they must approach those organizations that have been set up by the State.

I want to thank the hon. member for Sasolburg for his remarks. The hon. member has indicated that this legislation is really the end of a long process of improvement. I am satisfied that the improvement of the Unemployment Insurance Act—which took place after very good consultation among the relevant persons and bodies—is a new milestone. Streamlining and expedition have now been built into it. It is a positive attempt to rectify certain shortcomings and I am grateful that I have the support of both sides of the House for it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Plant Improvement Act of 1976 was basically a consolidation of five existing Acts. It was universally welcomed as a measure in the interests of the seed and nursery establishments. It has now become clear that certain provisions of the Act are formulated in a way which complicates the promulgation of neat regulations. An agreement was therefore reached with the industry that the necessary adjustments would be made to the Act before it was implemented. The Bill which is before the House today contains the necessary adjustments which are mainly of an administrative and technical nature.

At the moment all premises on which businesses are run, have to be registered. However, the Act leaves the impression that registrations will in future be aimed at businesses. From a practical point of view, it seems as if the retention of the existing principle will be preferable. We therefore envisage an amendment in terms of which all premises on which businesses are run, will have to be registered. We also envisage that the Minister will be authorized to grant exemption of registration in certain cases.

It is sometimes necessary to have tests carried out by authoritative international organizations for the recognition of varieties. The cost of such tests may differ considerably from the amounts which are collected locally for them. Because an applicant benefits primarily from the recognition of a variety, we envisage that he will also have to pay for the tests in question in cases of that nature.

†It is envisaged that bodies such as the agricultural control boards may eventually take over the administration of some of the plant improvement schemes, e.g. the Potato Board which is at present investigating virus-free plant materials in the Lydenburg area. In such cases propagating material would still have to be certified by the State. It is obvious that the State would have to maintain a certain degree of control over the administration of such schemes, and provision is accordingly contained in the Bill.

The rules for the sampling and analysis of propagating material have been standardized by the International Seed Testing Association, of which the Republic is a member. These rules are recognized and applied throughout the world, and provision is contained in the Bill to authorize the registrar to apply them in the Republic.

Our farmers are exposed to various factors which could cause losses in production. One such factor is the use of propagating material for which false or misleading claims are made. As this is not in the interests of increased food production, it is proposed that the furnishing of such claims be made a punishable offence.

The South African Agricultural Union has endorsed the proposed amendments to the Act, and it has also been accepted by the interested parties in the seed and nursery trades. So I do not see why this should take a lot of time. It is all above board. [Interjections.]

No cover-up, eh!

Mr. Speaker, we too have put a few questions to seed traders and men in the nursery trade from our side, and we have found that they are having no problems with this Bill. What is applicable here, is legislation which was passed in 1976, but still has not been proclaimed. As the hon. the Minister said, it was found in drawing up of the regulations by the department that certain definitions and provisions made a proper set of regulations impossible. It is clear that the proposed amendments do not envisage any real changes, except for the fact, as I see it, that emphasis is transferred from the abstract concept “business” to the registration of “premises”. I believe that this is a sound change of emphasis. We have no problem with this legislation, and we support it.

Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Wynberg. I have no fundamental objection to this Bill being passed. However, I want to point out a few aspects which require our attention. For the past decade or longer the department of the hon. the Minister has been doing excellent work in making available new cultivars, clones and virus-free clones to the fruit-growers of this country. Unfortunately the industry does not always make sufficient use of these.

I just want to mention two examples of the extremely good work the department has done, for example, a grape cultivar, a selected clone, which increased the yield per vine on a piece of land measuring three metres by three metres from three cases of export grapes to 10 cases. The improvement that has been effected is virtually unbelievable. Yet the industry does not make large scale use of this good material that has been made available by the department. As recently as last year a new plum cultivar grown here was made available to the industry. This cultivar is such an excellent one that while the average yield of other cultivars was R5 per case in Germany, the yield of this cultivar was R13 per case on the same market. Can you see, Sir, what excellent work is being done by the department of the Minister? But, as I have said, insufficient use is unfortunately being made of this material made available by the department.

This Bill seeks to encourage more use being made of this wonderful material. For this reason I should like to suggest a few further amendments to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. I regret my having been unable to contact the hon. the Minister beforehand to discuss these amendments with him. For that reason I am not going to move amendments as such; I am merely going to suggest a few further amendments for consideration so as to enable the hon. the Minister and his department, if they agree that my further amendments have merit, to effect them in the Other Place.

I refer in the first place to clause 1(a) of the Bill before us. It defines “business” as, inter alia, “(d) the sale of propagating material”. I want to suggest politely the addition of the words “or alienation” to have it read “the sale or alienation of propagating material”. Let me motivate this. Large quantities of propagating material which is not of the envisaged high standard is simply given away free of charge and there are people who make use of such material. One may never make use of this material, because we shall never be able to increase our yield per unit sufficiently if the mass of propagating material which is given away, is used as well. After a farmer has pruned, a grower can simply pick up the cuttings and use them for propagating purposes. That material may simply not be used. It is a crime against the industry to use them, because there are sufficient quantities of good material available. However, it is available at a price. To avoid having to pay this price, the grower fetches material which he can get free of charge. This is a crime against the industry. For that reason I suggest politely that the subparagraph concerned be amended to read “the sale or alienation of propagating material”.

In the second place I want to suggest an amendment to clause 8 of the Bill. I quote from clause 8—

If one looks at section 15(3), one will notice that no mention is made of clones. It is in the very field of the selection of clones that such tremendous progress has been made during the last decade. Section 15(3) refers to varieties only. For that reason I want to suggest that the words “or clones” be inserted every time after the word “variety” in clause 8. It is obvious that section 15(3) will then have to be amended as well by the insertion of the words “or clones” after the word “variety”.

I politely want to suggest a further amendment as well, one which is not necessarily an improvement, with regard to the proposed section 24(a)(ii), which reads as follows—

The Deciduous Fruit Board, the Dried Fruit Board and the Canning Board have already gone so far as to buy a farm situated far from other fruit farms where the excellent plant material which is made available through the research stations will be increased. Wonderful work is being done here, not by the Government, but by boards. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for wanting to insert this provision, because those boards are doing particularly good work. We only want them to be able to continue their work under the control of the department.

Finally, I want to suggest an amendment with regard to the proposed section 35(l)(g)(i). I want to suggest the same amendment which I suggested with regard to clause 1, i.e. that the words “or alienates” be inserted after the word “sells”. The proposed section 35(l)(g)(i) reads as follows—

After the word “sells” I want to have the words “or alienates” inserted for the same reason I mentioned with regard to clause 1.

I believe that these few further amendments I have suggested will improve this Bill considerably. However, that is not all; I also believe that it will do much to encourage our farmers to make use of only the very best propagating material. As I have said, the department uses three methods to provide the farmer with better propagating material, i.e. cultivation, where new varieties and cultivars are cultivated; selection of clones within a specific cultivar; and the freeing of existing cultivars from viruses. Our cultivars are of good quality, but when they are attacked by viruses, the yield from those cultivars drops so quickly that within a single decade they will only yield a quarter or less of the original yield. I want to see the farmers using only the best propagating material which is also freed of viruses by the department and which is then increased by this farm belonging to the three boards I have mentioned, so that there will be enough propagating material for all requirements. If we can reach that point, I foresee that the production costs of these fruits will decrease enormously. Then a farmer will escape high production costs and will no longer have such high price increases.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely for a few minutes to support the Bill as well. We believe that this is merely a technical and definitive correction to the Act and we certainly accept the hon. the Minister’s assertion that this is indeed the case. We would also like to support the previous speaker, the hon. member for Paarl. I think his proposed modifications to the Bill are certainly worth considering, and I think the hon. the Minister can deal with that, not in the Other Place, but in the Committee Stage tomorrow, or whenever this legislation comes before the House again.

This measure points to a suggestion which could be considered in the future. I am sure the hon. the Minister must have experienced considerable embarrassment in placing this amending legislation before the House, in that this legislation was put before the House a little less than three years ago as well. It is obvious that it was hastily introduced into the agricultural field before the proper homework had been done. It is obvious that a vast number of corrections have to be made here because the Bill was not carefully considered before it was placed before the House. In future the hon. the Minister should possibly consider the regulations before a Bill is put before the House. It seems obvious that this situation has arisen due to the fact that the regulations do not fit in with the Act, that the practical implications of placing regulations within the framework of the Act made it virtually impossible for the hon. the Minister to formulate and to elaborate on the regulations within the industry. I think the hon. the Minister should consider this and that in future, for practical purposes, the legislation should be formulated in conjunction with regulations so that the predicament with which the hon. the Minister is now faced does not crop up again, i.e. where the legislation is introduced hastily and has to come back to the House within three years and a vast number of items have to be corrected.

I should like to conclude on that note and add that our party will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to react to a few thoughts mentioned by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South when he actually criticized the hon. the Minister because it was necessary to come back within three years— we can correct him; it was only two years—to this House with amendments to the Plant Improvement Bill. I want to assure the hon. member that it is not true that the legislation was drawn up helter-skelter and brought to the House with the result that it has to be drawn up again. If I am not mistaken, this hon. member was a member of the building industry, and I am sure that he often had to change the cowlings of a building, not even within three years, but within a much shorter period, in order to make something fit. In this case it is the same as happens in all fields of life: One makes plans, but when one comes to their practical implementation, one discovers that there are hitches which one has not noticed otherwise and which occur in this case. I think that the hon. the Minister deserves a compliment because this legislation was not implemented without further ado, but that the hitches are being solved before it is implemented, so that it will serve its purpose smoothly when implemented.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Paarl said when he paid tribute to the work being done by the research institutes with regard to the cultivation of new cultivars. The cultivation and purifying of cultivars enjoys a special place in the work of the research institutes. When I joined the fruit industry 40 years ago, there was not a single South African-grown peach cultivar in the industry. Today South Africa can boast that we do not need to import a single cultivar. Something like this only happens very rarely. It is because the growing programme of fruit in South Africa ensured that we have the very best—fruit which, as the hon. member for Paarl rightly pointed out, can also compete in the overseas trade with products from throughout the world. To cultivate a new fruit cultivar costs about R40 000 today. That is the cost of growing, purifying and making it available to the industry. That is why this plant improvement legislation is so important and it is necessary that it be implemented smoothly. We cannot afford the good material made available to the industry being lost without further ado, nor can we afford mistakes in the handling of the material which can lead to that material being of no use to the industry.

The hon. member for Paarl pointed out how a cultivar can degenerate within only one decade to such an extent that it no longer produces more than 25% of its optimum production, as a result of virus infection. By the way, it will be interesting for hon. members to know that the beautiful view of autumn colours which they see here in the Western Cape when winter starts, is caused by virus infection. When we reach a stage when we can make purified material available to the industry as a whole, we will no longer see that beautiful sight of autumn colours which is so characteristic of the Boland.

It is true that the aim of this legislation is to make only the best material available to the industry within the shortest possible time. To bring this about, it is necessary for us to have the machinery to enable things to go smoothly. It is true that at the moment people are still using material of a inferior quality. As the hon. member for Paarl rightly said, when vineyards are pruned, people pick up discarded shoots and plant them. As a result inferior material is produced. However, I should like to state very clearly that this practice does not occur everywhere. Nor is it an accusation that can only be levelled at the cultivators. The fruit farmers themselves use that material to plant vineyards. Therefore I should like to support whole-heartedly, the idea put forward for consideration by the hon. member for Paarl, i.e. the suggestion to insert in clause 1(a)(b), after “sale” the words “or alienation” as well. I think this is something to which the hon. the Minister should give serious thought. It is precisely in regard to this picking up of material or, on the other hand, the fact that someone might also easily sell what he has picked up there, that one should take care that there is no material present in the industry which could cause South Africa tremendous harm.

I think there is no longer any doubt about the important role played by the fruit industry in the agriculture of South Africa. In the first place it is an important component in the diet of our people and especially during this Health Year, propaganda can be made for it because of the beneficial effect of fruit on the health of our people; on the other hand also as a result of the valuable foreign exchange we earn with the export of our fruit. For that reason I think that it is a very good thing for us to solve minor hitches in this legislation before it is implemented, and also to facilitate the drawing up of regulations, and to be able to be implement them as soon as possible.

It is very important for us to get the maximum out of our fruit industry and this can only be done through effective measures to put the production of fruit, vegetables and other material covered by this legislation on the highest possible level. Therefore I have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg has made the best speech we have heard in this House since Monday. The hon. member for Paarl mentioned a few things to which we shall certainly pay attention. However, I should like to put the hon. member’s mind at ease. When he says that a man should be prohibited from giving away propagating material, we also have to enforce the law and say that he is not even allowed to pick up a vine cutting and plant it Our experience is that the profit margin has now become so small—the hon. member has also referred to this—that a man who plants a vine or an orchard knows that he will have to fertilize it, irrigate it, weed it, and cultivate it for the next 30 years and even longer, and this will be profitable for him if he has planted something which will not produce the optimum. The hon. member refers to new varieties, which have caused production to rise from 3 tons to 10 tons on the same surface. This is one of the things which is so important to us. Research work must be followed by guidance.

I think we are succeeding. I can reassure the hon. member that we shall indeed study the various matters he mentioned, such as the point that there should not only be varieties, but clones as well. Mention was made of the research programmes of the department, apart from what is happening in the Western Cape. As far as vineyards are concerned, Roodeplaat near Pretoria can serve as an important example. Mr. Ted Evans, under the guidance of Mr. Strydom, has already developed varieties which are ripe by 3 November in the Groblersdal area, varieties which are planted into the correct rootstock so that the optimum production can be obtained with the correct cultivation.

We should ask for Ted Evans to be brought here.

As far as this work is concerned, we do not mind spending the necessary money. The Citrus Exchange is also doing rootstock research in co-operation with the department and moreover, growers are certified in cases where their rootstock material complies with certain requirements. The farmers usually look for that type of tree, for citrus trees may live up to the age of 50 years and one therefore wishes to plant the healthiest trees. I agree with the hon. member on the few suggestions he has made, and I shall discuss his suggestions with the department and with the legal advisers so that, if necessary, we can introduce the necessary amendments in the Other Place, to the benefit of the industry.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said that the original legislation had not been carefully considered and that that is why we have now to draft another one after only two years. But we found that certain changes had to be made, especially after we tried to implement the provisions in practice.

*One has to keep in mind that the growers and the whole industry are affected by the provisions, and in order to cause the least disruption, we decided to bring this legislation before the House. Nothing and nobody has suffered any harm as a result. The hon. member for Paarl referred to the farm Excelsior where three control boards are doing research work together. This research work is being carried out under supervision, but the hon. member wants to make provision in the legislation for the control board to do its work under the supervision of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The hon. member for Middelburg is chairman of the Growers’ Association and summarised and defined the situation quite correctly. This legislation succeeds very well indeed in providing solutions for the problems experienced in this regard. I should like to express my thanks once more to hon. members for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The contractual competence of the Groot Constantia Control Board is restricted by law because the board is the trustee of only a part of our national heritage. Since its functions are impeded by some of these restrictions, additional powers are being granted to the control board in the Bill which is before the House today.

†It is unnecessary to increase the area of Groot Constantia solely to ensure its economic viability. The inclusion of certain properties would, however, contribute towards the conservation of the rural character of the Upper Constantia valley. As the board’s activities are restricted to State land, and most adjoining properties are privately owned, the inclusion of such properties can only be accomplished through the purchase thereof. The use of State funds for such purchases can hardly be justified, and it would therefore have to be financed out of the profits of the board. These profits will only materialize after the new vineyards have yielded a return. I think hon. members are aware of the fact that the board is busy planting new vineyards. Unless suitable interim measures are taken, the land in question may by that time well have been utilized for urban development such as chain stores, etc. Hon. members ought to know what will happen then. The board requires authority to hire such land and to extend its farming operations thereon with a view to the eventual purchase thereof. The Bill provides for the granting of such authority to the board, but contains a stipulation that it may only be exercised with ministerial approval.

*Next to Table Mountain, Groot Constantia is the greatest tourist attraction in South Africa. The stream of visitors puts great pressure on the facilities available and necessitates the provision of additional facilities. At the moment, the control board could hardly afford to use its farming revenue for this purpose. Visitors ought to pay for the provision of such facilities and for that reason they are now required to pay an entrance fee. The Bill contains a provision intended to remove all doubt about the control board’s authority in this connection.

The control board does not have funds available at the moment for constructing residential accommodation for all its staff on the estate. In order to solve this interim problem, it is provided that the control board is authorized to rent residential accommodation for its staff in surrounding neighbourhoods.

Groot Constantia is one of the display windows of South African agriculture, especially of the wine industry. This Bill is intended to secure the future of Groot Constantia for posterity and is welcomed by all interested parties and I suppose by all the parties in this House as well.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg regrets that he is unable to be present to speak in support of this Bill. He has other urgent business to attend to.

He has sent me a note.

For obvious reasons it gives me great pleasure to speak on this Bill. Groot Constantia is a cultural jewel in the Constantia valley and also a very great economic asset.

Can you say the same of its MP?

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended mentioning this, but a couple of weeks ago there was a celebration at Groot Constantia where the hon. the Minister of Agriculture as usual made a very good speech. He welcomed all the guests present with the single exception of the MP and MPC for Constantia. It was rather like Lord Nelson, who clapped his glass to his sightless eye and said: “I am damned if I see them!” To prove to the hon. Minister that I regard it purely as an oversight and that I have already forgiven him, we will support this Bill.

I believe it is right that Groot Constantia, which is a valuable asset in the Constantia valley, should continue to stimulate the growth of vineyards, the production of wine and to set a high standard. We strongly agree with the hon. the Minister that in fulfilling this function Groot Constantia can help save the Constantia valley from being encroached upon by suburban sprawl. I am delighted to hear that the hon. the Minister is concerned about the need that some of these historical estates, including the historic landscape of Constantia, be protected against the kind of encroachment we read about every day. I think that by developing Groot Constantia as a very strong economic asset, by producing wine of a very high quality, by becoming an economic stimulus in the Constantia valley, it can contribute a great deal towards defending the valley. In this regard I refer particularly to some of the neighbouring farms which are not economically strong, nor all being farmed in a manner which enhances the prestige of Constantia as an area producing high quality wines. Groot Constantia can set high standards, influence the production of high quality wine and so assist in maintaining the other valuable farmlands in the Constantia valley. I think this deserves the support of everyone in this House and in this country.

So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we believe this Bill serves a good purpose, will enable Groot Constantia to employ its influence, technique and skills in assisting some of those areas which do not belong to the estate, but which may in future years become valuable partners of it. I believe there is no attempt being made in this Bill to create a monopoly situation in Constantia. It is purely a dedication to the value of that area and of its wine production as well as a desire to protect it for posterity. For these reasons we warmly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Constantia for his support of this Bill. The fact that the hon. the Minister did not welcome him at the lunch held at Groot Constantia recently was not of any real consequence. There were so many dignitaries present that the Minister could only welcomed a few. I was in the audience as well and was not specifically welcomed either. Nevertheless I am delighted to hear the attitude of the hon. member for Constantia towards the Bill and I think he is completely right in what he said.

The estate of Groot Constantia was first allocated in 1685 by Hendrik Adriaan van Rheede, Lord of Mydrecht Since the death of Van der Stel in 1712 the estate has slowly diminished in size. It first diminished in size on his death when there were a great many subdivisions. Then the position was static for 100 years or so, but on the deaths of subsequent owners the farm was divided, subdivided and re-subdivided. An acute position developed after the last war with the advent of the internal combustion engine, utilized on a big scale. This gave rise to great suburban sprawls, with the great freeways being built out into the suburbs. As a result of this there was a tremendous assault on agricultural activities at Constantia. This seriously affected agriculture in the valley in general and at Groot Constantia in particular.

The fact that the position of Groot Constantia has been partially stabilized— certainly as far as the estate itself is concerned—is very important indeed, but the fact that agriculture should be stabilized and that the estate can play an important role in respect of the surrounding land, is extremely important. It is important, not only from the point of view of the Cape, South Africa or international visitors, but also from the point of view of the enormous environmental consequences for children growing up in a great metropolitan area such as Cape Town.

I have had the experience of speaking to children at an orphanage a little while ago, children who have never seen a cow, a horse, a sheep, or a tractor at work, and have never been in an agricultural atmosphere.

It could have been the United Party! [Interjections.]

Since Groot Constantia finds itself within a great urban metropolis, it has an important role to play in increasing or improving the quality of life of succeeding generations.

The position at Groot Constantia is critical, and this legislation is therefore opportune. I say that because if the estate is to succeed, in the long term, it must be an economically viable unit. The opportunities for expansion are, however, so limited because the city is already clustering around the estate and there are only a few additional pieces of land that the estate can acquire. Since the position is fluid around the estate, the area being an agricultural area in transition, by way of this legislation the position of the estate can be stabilized quite rapidly. That is why I feel that the legislation is extremely opportune.

If the estate is to play a role as a safety net for what is left of the cultural and agricultural heritage at Constantia, it must be made contiguous with the pieces of land that are sensitive or threatened. With this legislation it will certainly be possible for the estate to hire and acquire the land at Nova Constantia and also other sensitive pieces of land. This would mean that the estate would immediately become contiguous with all of the sensitive areas around it and could then play its role as a safety net or a possible successor should any of these pieces of land reach a point of conflict. I shall discuss the position in greater detail during the Committee Stage.

In closing I should simply like to say that through this legislation it will now be possible also to utilize small parcels of land which could not be economically farmed by their owners. Where we wish the agricultural practice to continue, the estate will be able to manage those small pieces of land for the benefit of the estate and of the abutting owners. Offers have already been made to the estate and, in the interests of agriculture and the environmental factors in the valley, the estate will take up those offers.

For many generations now agriculture has been practised in the valley of Constantia. That is where for all practical purposes agriculture was first practised at the Cape. It is interesting that in this great metropolitan area of Cape Town it is also the last place where agriculture is being practised in this part of the Western Cape. Whereas over the last 50 years we have seen a retreat of the vineyards, a retreat of the grape, around this part of Cape Town, now for the first time since 1976 we are seeing the advance of the vineyards here. If the House should pass this legislation, we will see a further advance of the vineyards at Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to support the Bill briefly. The two previous Members of Parliament jokingly expressed their disapproval at the fact that they were not thanked for being there, that they were not welcomed. However, let me tell you my problem: I was not even invited. Therefore I do not think the hon. gentlemen can really complain too much.

Mr. Speaker, we are all very proud of Groot Constantia. I think it is one of the heritages we South Africans can really be proud of. I also believe that the board of control that runs the Groot Constantia Estate should be complimented and from what I have heard, the hon. member who has just sat down, one of the board members, is doing a superb job on the board. I think we ought to compliment him as well on the work he has done for the estate.

I should like to comment on a few points in the Bill. The first is the legalizing of the housing rentals for staff. This is obviously a temporary measure. I take it as such. I trust that proper housing can be made available to the staff in the future. I believe it is imperative and essential that members of staff of a farming organization like the estate should be resident at and part and parcel of the estate. I think that the board should consider, as it obviously will, in due course building proper homes for the senior staff. I do not think that that is a serious problem. For the men to live elsewhere in the Peninsula in rented homes is in my opinion not a good practice. Therefore I think the board should consider relocating them on the estate at some future date.

The other point I should like to raise at this stage concerns the question that through this Bill the estate will be able to lease and possibly purchase land in adjacent areas. I should like to support that, but again with the proviso that this should not lead to the Groot Constantia Estate spreading too far. I believe it should always be known and thought of in terms of the grape and the wine from Groot Constantia. The provision in the Bill should not be taken loosely to mean that the board can now start buying or renting farms in, say, Steenberg, Tokai or Bergvliet I do not think that that is the intention, but that the thought behind this is to promote the Groot Constantia image we hold so dearly. We shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Constantia. Regarding the point he made, I want to say that it was due to an oversight. When I visit a constituency and the MP or MPC is present, regardless of the party he belongs to, I make a point of referring to him because he in turn pays me respect by his presence. On this occasion it was an oversight, but next year he will definitely get his invitation and I shall remember to welcome him in his own constituency.

I thank the hon. member’s predecessor for being so concerned about this encroachment upon, as he has said, the heritage of all the people of South Africa. That is the reason why he supports me in my desire to protect this heritage. His predecessor, Mr. Baxter, came to me when we started to draft this Bill and said that he had a very good man for me to serve on this board, namely his MPC, Mr. Kent Durr. I then appointed him on the advice of Mr. Baxter.

*I now want to say to the hon. member for Maitland that all the members of this board, from the chairman, Dr. Johan Burger, down to the individual members of the board, have made it their task to preserve this precious jewel. Practical proposals made by them have been embodied in this Bill. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South expressed his concern and said that we wanted to go so far as to include the adjoining Tokai area in the State estate. However, this will not be done, because we want the estate to continue as an economic unit. At the moment, they are not allowed to build any houses on the estate, and while there may be excellent Coloured houses available on a neighbouring farm, those houses may not be rented in terms of the existing Act. This Bill intends to rectify the position. The ideal thing is for these houses to be on the property.

I thank hon. members for their contributions in this debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act already makes provision for control over the sale of a portion of agricultural land and the granting of a right over such a portion. Our law accepts that a building forms part of the land on which it stands, and consequently a right over a building also represents a right over the land on which it has been erected. The fact that the Act contains no reference to buildings causes problems of interpretation concerning this legal principle. For the sake of clarity, therefore, it is being provided that the existing control over the sale of a portion of agricultural land, and the granting of a right over such a portion, is independent of whether there is a building on such a portion.

†The Act provides for control over the use of agricultural land for urban development. In terms of this provision the establishment or enlargement of the area of jurisdiction of a local authority may only be promulgated after permission therefor has been granted in terms of the Act. In three instances the official notices relating to such promulgations have, however, been published by the provincial authorities before the required consent was obtained. As the Act does not provide for the issuing of ex post facto consent, these promulgations cannot be validated through administrative actions. From an agricultural point of view there is no objection to the use of the land in question for non-agricultural purposes. The Bill therefore contains provision to validate the establishment and enlargement of the areas of jurisdiction in question.

The provisions of this Bill enjoy the support of the South African Agricultural Union and all the other parties, including the Opposition, concerned therewith.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister can speak with confidence when he says that this Bill will enjoy the support of the Opposition. Measures to conserve agricultural land will always have the support of this side of the House, just as we have supported the last Bill, which we believe would help to retain the last vestiges of agricultural potential in the Constantia valley. We only wish that legislation could be introduced to ensure that a hypermarket is not built in that area.

That is a political question.

Absolutely.

Clause 1 introduces a definition for the word “building”. This is a consequential amendment. The amendment contained in clause 2 clarifies the situation in that control of land also means the control of any improvement on that land. We understand that problems of interpretation have arisen. We agree that clarity in legislation is a necessity. Clause 3 deals with action that has been taken by the Administrators of Natal and Transvaal after legislation had already been passed, but not promulgated, in respect of the enlargement of areas under the control of local authorities. Following the assurance given by the hon. the Minister that this land is not required for agricultural purposes, we lend our agreement to this part of the Bill as well. We support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to thank the Opposition for their support because it is only normal, in any community, that good things should be supported. Sometimes, though, one just wants to express one’s astonishment at the fact that they do not always do so.

The scope of the Bill is very, very limited. For many years it was my privilege to be a member of a very sagacious and honoured profession, a profession which we are likely to have with us always. The problem is of course that the legal fraternity always creates problems where no real problems previously existed for a normal person. This is also the problem which we have encountered in this case. In reality it is a very simple Bill to deal with a practical problem. That is why it was necessary for the hon. the Minister to come to this House with this short Bill and brief amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support this Bill. I think it is rather a pity that the hon. member for Barberton cannot thank us once in a while when we do agree. It at least shows that we are positive when the hon. the Minister does introduce a good Bill, and we are certainly quite happy to congratulate and thank him. I think the same would apply to the hon. member for Barberton.

This legislation obviously involves just a legal correction of terminology, a correction to the original words relating to property and buildings. It is a matter of the simple adjustment of these legal terms. The other portion of the amending Bill involves the validation of the proclamation of three properties, now legalizing the ex post facto decisions which were reached by the provincial administrations some years ago. In this connection I make a sincere request to the hon. the Minister to take a very good look at those three properties that are now being legalized and to satisfy himself that they are, in fact, bona fide exceptions. I mention this for the simple reason that I was in the property game for many years and realize what can happen.

The minute I realized that one of the applications came from White River, I made inquiries to ascertain what the application was all about. I subsequently found out that this particular application was for, and on behalf of, a Mr. Rob Ferreira. As we all know, Mr. Rob Ferreira was the MEC in charge of local government. I find it very strange that the MEC in charge of local government should apply for something with which he was so au fait, and that here we have an exception that must now be endorsed by Parliament. I do not have the facts on this matter, but I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister does know whether this was, in fact, an exception, whether there was no undue enrichment and whether there was any argument or controversy which preceded this application. I should like the hon. the Minister to satisfy himself on this, and if he is satisfied that there was no such thing, we are quite happy to accept this and to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, but say that it was pleasant to hear that his party also supports the legislation. As regards the matter to which he referred in connection with clause 3 of the Bill, I am very certain—and I am certain the hon. the Minister will be able to give the same assurance—that the consent in the three cases to which he referred would have been given in any case if the necessary applications had been submitted in advance.

The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970, proved to be one of the best instruments for putting a stop to the fragmentation of our valuable agricultural land in this country and, where it was in fact necessary, controlling this process properly. This Act has already produced wonderful results. If one looks at the latest report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services one reads that the number of farms has diminished as a result of the application of this legislation. Between 2 January 1971 and 30 June 1977 2 621 farming units disappeared completely in South Africa. One realizes of course that this legislation is focused on the long term. However, I think that we should also congratulate the department on the degree of progress which has already been made with the application of the measure and the achievement of its aims. If one considers what progress has been made during the past eight years with the application of the Act, one finds it striking that the number of applications for subdivision, urban development and other non-agricultural uses has assumed a fixed pattern. The first characteristic—a very gratifying one—is that 80% of all applications were made only for agricultural purposes and not for non-agricultural purposes. A second characteristic was the large measure of prior examination which took place on all levels. Applicants under the Act consult various advisers when they submit their applications, for example their attorney and their surveyor. The applications are also sent to extension officers and to other Government departments. All these persons and bodies are able to provide such applicants with proper advice so that, when applications arrive at the department, most of them can be approved. This characteristic testifies to the quality of the legislation. One of the criteria for legislation is, after all, whether it is conducive to legal certainty.

The envisaged amendment in clause 1 and clause 2 of the Bill is in fact aimed at bringing about greater clarity, and consequently more legal certainty. That is why this legislation is generally welcomed.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for supporting this measure. I do not believe it is allowed, but I have such warm feelings to all those who support such a good Bill, that I should like to send the hon. member a bottle of wine as a token of my gratitude. [Interjections.]

You should visit my constituency and taste the wonderfully sweet oranges there!

I also want to thank the hon. member for Barberton. I know he undertook a study of the Act. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South put certain questions to me in connection with the ex post facto cases I mentioned in my Second Reading speech. The first case concerned Roodekrans, just south of Pietermaritzburg. It comprised 916 ha of agricultural smallholdings. According to the Natal Provincial Administration Roodekrans, which was afterwards renamed—I do not know what the present name is—was rezoned as a residential area. The second case was that of Verwoerdburg. It also comprised agricultural smallholdings and included part of the agricultural institute at Irene.

The third one, that at White River, was a piece of land of 73 ha which was rezoned for industrial purposes. There was definitely no politician or retired politician involved in this case. The name that the hon. member mentioned in connection with White River has nothing to do with this piece of land. I can give the hon. member that assurance. I can supply with all the particulars relevant to the said land at White River. The hon. member can take my word for it. Nothing out of the ordinary occurred in connection with the application. The person to whom he referred had nothing to do with this at all.

*The hon. member for Ermelo studied the existing legislation very well. Both he and the hon. member for Barberton are my legal advisers in this matter. I should like to thank him most heartily for all the trouble he has taken, as well for his support for this legislation. [Interjections.] I have very good legal advisers, Mr. Speaker. I had better just stay out of court [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

After the Patents Act, 1978, was published on 7 May last year, representations were received from interested parties in regard to the provisions of section 3(1)(d) of the Act relating to the extension of the period of certain existing patents. In other words these refer to patents which were registered in terms of the legislation which was applicable prior to 1978.

The said section provides that a patent which was granted on an application made prior to the commencement of the Act may be extended in terms of the provisions of section 39 of the Patents Act, 1952. This section provides that, after the expiration of a period of 16 years, a patent may be extended for a further period of five years or, under exceptional circumstances, for a period of 10 years.

After receipt of the abovementioned representations, certain representative members of the ad hoc committee which was responsible at the time for the drafting of the Act were convened for further discussions. The committee’s view during the drafting of the Act—I am referring now to the 1978 Act—was that it did not see its way clear to removing the existing rights. These are the rights which originated in terms of the 1952 legislation.

On the face of it we must agree, however, that this appears to have been a valid reason for the application of the provisions of the 1952 legislation to existing patents. On the other hand those who made representations stated their standpoint, particularly in connection with the possible extension of the period of certain existing patents by a period of 10 years, and under exceptional circumstances.

†In discussions with members of the committee the representations received in connection with the extension of the term of patents were considered. It was noted that new patents, in terms of the Act, could have a maximum lifetime of 20 years without the possibility of an extension of term, and that it would therefore seem to be unfair if old patents, admittedly under exceptional circumstances, could have a lifespan of 26 years. In order to eliminate this apparent anomaly the suggestion which is contained in the Bill was agreed to with these representatives, viz. that as far as existing patents are concerned, the possible extension of the term should be limited to five years.

Clause 2 of the Bill rectifies an error in the English text of section 31(5) of the Act, where the word “application” was used instead of the equivalent English translation of the word “spesifikasie” as in the Afrikaans text. As the English text was signed by the State President, I am taking the first opportunity of rectifying this mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that we have no objection whatsoever to clause 2 of the Bill.

Next, I want to discuss clause 1. The hon. the Minister stated his case quite clearly and logically, viz. that it was decided to insert a certain right, which entailed that under certain circumstances certain patents could be extended up to 10 years, without alteration in last year’s then new legislation. He went on to explain, however, that a new decision has now been reached, because it is now felt that there is an anomaly, if I understood the hon. the Minister correctly, between the possible 10 years and the five years only which is now allowed by the existing legislation. One comprehends that argument clearly.. But I think that another side to the matter, too, is clearly to be discerned, which is that existing rights could indeed be revoked here. The hon. the Minister apparently received representations in this connection and I am fortunately, or unfortunately, also in the position that certain representations reached me, representations which were however in the opposite direction. It is emphasized here that a very large number of patents are in fact being affected by this, and that I personally did not realize when I first read through the Bill. Mention is made here—I cannot say whether it is correct or incorrect since I did not have the time to examine them—of 126 000 patents which could be affected by this legislation. Apparently this could be typified as a theoretical number, but it was enough to make me decide to read through the message thoroughly.

I do not think it is a question which one should argue about too much and oppose the Second Reading, and we do not intend to do so, but I would nevertheless be grateful if the hon. the Minister, perhaps on the occasion of his reply today or during the Committee Stage, could elucidate the matter to us as much as possible so that, with all the necessary information, we can take a decision.

There is really nothing else that one must discuss in this connection. We realize that this is a very narrowly circumscribed amendment to a long Act, and that this is no occasion to discuss other aspects of that Act Last year we were very worried about the relationship between employee and employer, as far as patents were concerned. Particularly the right of employees as opposed to employers with regard to inventions of patents for which they themselves were responsible is relevant here. Sir, we would just like to ask in passing, if you would permit, whether there has been any further experience in this connection during the short period since the 1978 legislation was passed, and whether the now existing arrangement in terms of the 1978 legislation have had a satisfactory effect.

Mr. Speaker, I think we referred last year to the importance and necessity for the existence of patent legislation in every State. It should also protect certain rights and privileges of patentors and patentees. The statutory amendment which we have before us this afternoon deals with the possible extension of the lifespan of a patent by five years beyond the maximum of 20 years in the case of patents registered before this Act came into operation. As regards the representations which were addressed for the retention of the existing rights under section 39 of the Act, the hon. member for Parktown referred to 126 000 patents which are affected by this. However, if one were to examine the grounds on which an application for extension of time for such a right can in fact be made, one wonders whether those 126 000 patents are really applicable, since the grounds on which an extension may be granted are the following: Firstly an application for the extension of a patent may be made if inadequate remuneration has been derived from that patent. That is the only reason which is given in section 39 as to why a person may receive an extension of the validity of one’s patent, in other words if one has not derived adequate remuneration during the previous 20 years. This means that if there are 126 000 patents involved here, inadequate remuneration has been derived from each of the 126 000 patents during the past 20 years.

However, if one takes the matter a step further, this legislation does not do away with the first portion of the right which provides that the period may be extended by more than five years. The principal Act provided that the period may in fact be extended by five years and this legislation also provides that this may be done, but the only difference is that the period may now be extended up to a maximum of 10 years, under very exceptional circumstances which have nothing to do with the profitability of the patent. In my opinion the objections and arguments which were raised to the effect that the provision ought to be retained fall away completely.

The second reason for being able to apply for the extension of a patent right applies in the case of hostilities. In the principal Act no period is laid down for this purpose, except that reference is made to the duration of the hostilities. In this legislation that period is also limited to five years. In view of these circumstances we on this side of the House would very much like to support the Second Reading of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the main purpose of the Bill has been very well covered by the speakers who have preceded me, including the hon. the Minister. We shall also support the Bill, especially since it has obtained the approval of the organizing committee.

There is, however, a provision in the Bill which has certain implications, of which I am not quite sure whether the hon. the Minister is aware. We have a problem in connection with clause 3 of the Bill, a clause which deals with the date on which this Bill will become operative, i.e. 1 January 1979. I do not know whether the hon. Minister is aware of it, but since that date applications have been made to the court for the extension of patents.

I know about them.

I should like the hon. Minister to consider those cases and we shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage to alter clause 3 so that the date on which the provisions of the Bill become operative, will be the date of its proclamation. If this is not done, it means that people who have already been given certain rights, are going to have these rights taken away from them. One such case was decided upon on 31 January of this year, where the Commissioner of Patents granted a seven-year extension to a particular application. I believe that at present there is also a similar case before a judge. I think the hon. Minister will agree that these two cases have to be taken into consideration in the light of the provisions of clause 3 of the Bill. We shall therefore support the Second Reading of this Bill, but I shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to hon. members at once for their support of the legislation. The hon. member for Wonderboom has already replied in part to the arguments raised by the hon. member for Parktown. In all fairness, when one is dealing with legislation of this nature, i.e. legislation which affects rights, there is of course a specific weight which must be accorded to a specific argument. Precisely because we are dealing here with conflicting interests, someone has to decide which part of the argument weighs the heaviest. In this specific case it is very clear that, when we piloted new legislation in this connection through the House last year, in keeping with that of other countries, we did not adopt the same approach as those countries. Some of these countries did not accord different treatment to registered patents as opposed to non-registered patents. We decided to protect those rights, relating to patents, which arose in accordance with the provisions of the 1952 legislation. Subsequently we found that, with the recognition of those rights, we prejudiced other people in the sense that we were limiting the lifespan of patents which are now registered, according to the provisions of this legislation, to an absolute period of 20 years. In the other case we were de facto granting the right for a patent to be registered for 16 years, and also that application could be made for extension for two periods of five years each. After we had heard all the representations, they were sent to the members of the ad hoc committee responsible at the time for the drafting of the legislation. The conclusion we arrived at—and I concede at once, in all fairness to hon. members, that that conclusion can be debated—and the members of the committee agreed with the conclusion, was that we should make a fairer arrangement between the set of patents registered in terms of the 1952 Act and the others registered in terms of the 1978 Act. For that reason, as the hon. member for Wonderboom correctly observed, we did not revoke the right of application for renewal, but we shortened the period to five years. De facto this always gives the old patent holders a longer period …

21 years.

Yes, a period of 21 years. I shall be pleased if the hon. member were to accept this argument Unfortunately I cannot argue about the question of whether there are 126 000 patent holders who may be affected by this legislation. I shall concede at once that, theoretically speaking, all the patentees who were registered in terms of— let us say—the 1952 Act are affected by the terms of this provision. In theory they all have the right, under given circumstances, to apply for renewal for a period of 10 years. In my opinion there must be a cut off period somewhere, and with this legislation I am trying to ensure this.

The hon. member asked me whether we could provide any new information in respect of the new principle which exists in the 1978 Act, viz. that the designer becomes the owner of the patent Unfortunately I cannot give him this information now, but I am quite prepared to obtain it for him, if there is information available on this matter. The hon. member for Wonderboom raised this argument, and I thank him for his contribution in this specific connection.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has indicated that his party supports the amending Bill, but that they are considering an amendment during the Committee Stage regarding the operative date of the Bill as it is going to be retrospective to 1 January 1979. I shall discuss the details of his argument during the Committee Stage. I can indicate to him at this stage that the decision to introduce this Bill was taken because some of these applications which have been referred to. I think this can be more profitably debated during the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although the Bill appears totally innocent as far as its formulation is concerned, it has a wide ripple effect because it is related to the present energy crisis and more specifically to the supply of crude oil in the world. The increase in the use of energy in general is determined by a variety of factors, among which the increase in the population, economic development and growth, the increased degree of mechanization and the striving for higher standards of living, are among the most important. The increase in population is one of the most important factors in the socio-economic sphere, since it is directly related to activities such as food production, housing and transport which inevitably affect energy consumption. Primary energy consumption in South Africa increased over the period 1973 till 1977 by approximately 4,6% per annum. Over the same period, oil imports increased volume-wise by only approximately 0,8% per year, although in money terms they increased by approximately 500%, so that the present amount spent on oil imports is in the order of R1 300 million per annum and, therefore, represents the biggest single item on the import account of the Republic of South Africa.

South Africa is in a relatively favourable position, in the sense that imported natural oil represents only approximately a quarter of our total primary energy consumption, in comparison with an average dependence of 65% on oil and gas throughout the rest of the world. In the South African economy the importance of oil exports is reflected particularly in the fact that the transport sector is approximately 80% dependent on petroleum products.

The problem of the adequacy and the availability of natural oil to South Africa, is manifested in both the short and the long term. In the first place, the political instability has brought oil production to a standstill in Iran, the second biggest producer of crude oil in the world and also South Africa’s most important supplier. If a stable Government should come into power in Iran, it is uncertain what that Government’s policy towards South Africa will be as far as the supply of crude oil is concerned. Even under the most favourable conditions the problem is intensified by the fact that due to technical and business reasons it will be a considerable time before oil production in Iran can be raised to a significant level and oil will be available for export.

It should be borne in mind that oil is an exhaustible resource. According to expert investigations it is expected that the demand for this product will exceed the supply of oil early in the next decade. This means that the import countries will have to compete to a greater extent for a dwindling, a state of affairs which could have extremely disruptive effects on the balance of payments of the import countries.

In the light of these circumstances it is, therefore, vital for each country importing crude oil, on the first place, particularly in the short term, to investigate all possibilities for a relatively stable oil supply and, in the second place, to reduce as far as possible their dependence on this commodity. The first alternative can, however, have far-reaching implications, such as the payment of steadily increasing premiums above the official market price on available oil.

Various steps can be taken in order to reduce the dependence on imported crude oil. In the first place, an intensive and total strategy for energy conservation, particularly in respect of petroleum products, can make an important contribution. It is important that not only imported energy-bearing substances, but also locally available resources such as coal, should be utilized as rationally and efficiently as possible. It is, therefore, necessary that a total reorientation in respect of energy consumption, aimed at a society conscious of conservation, should take root. This applies not only to oil products, but also to energy in general.

Energy conservation can also play an important role in the bridging of the time gap to the application and utilization of alternative, non-conventional and renewable energy sources. The need for alternative sources is still growing, while various possibilities, such as the utilization of alcohol, are still being investigated. A greater independence of imported sources can be gained by the construction of large capital projects such as Sasol 2. In this regard it is important always to bear in mind that such undertakings are based on a large, but exhaustible source, viz. coal.

The energy policy forms an inherent and integral element of the Government’s wider economic policy of economic growth, full employment, price stability and a sound balance of payments. The availability of sufficient energy at acceptable costs is, therefore, a major consideration in formulating economic and energy policies.

We must guard against the idea taking root that the Republic’s problems with crude oil are exclusively the result of our international political relations. This problem is, in my opinion, merely an additional dimension in the overall international problem.

Because oil plays such an important role in the economy of all Western industrial countries, the disrupting of oil supplies to them and the stirring up of chaos in the world market of oil, is a useful instrument in the hands of the enemies of the Western World, including South Africa. We would have been subjected to these problems whatever our international political relations with other countries. For that reason South Africa, even in the absence of boycotts or threats, should take steps to cope with the world problem as it affects us. Obviously the availability of funds to cope with the present fluctuating circumstances and events which may still take place, is the best basis for preparedness in this particular aspect. It is particularly necessary that we should have the necessary funds at our disposal to be able to purchase crude oil, even if its price is considerably higher than the official Opec price.

†Mr. Speaker, you will recall that towards the end of 1978 I announced that due to the increase of the international price of crude oil, by the Opec countries, the Government had to increase the price of petroleum products as from 1 January 1979. Although the Opec price increase made provision for an aggregate increase of 14,5% to be introduced in three stages during the course of this year—starting off with 5% as from 1 January 1979—the Government decided not to follow the pattern of these increases, but to introduce a 10% increase as from 1 January 1979. I also explained at that time that the problem of a price increase was compounded by the availability factor because the world demand for oil could not in the short term be reduced to the lower level of world production, a factor which was expected to lead to further increases in the price of oil above the international price. It did appear at that time that additional supplies would only be obtainable at a higher cost—an assumption which later proved to be correct. The only mistake was that it was higher than we anticipated it would be.

Experience over the last two months has been that virtually all crude oil was purchased at a premium by the oil companies. Initially the premium was of the order of between $1 to $2 (US) per barrel. Subsequently this premium increased to between $3 to $4 and at present premiums of between $5 to $6 are paid. Only small quantities of crude oil can be obtained by the oil companies, even at these very high premiums. It is therefore perfectly clear that supplies can only be obtained at high cost with a consequent further pressure on our balance of payments. In fact, the same applies to all oil importing countries.

As far as we are concerned it is important to remember that the balance of payments represents a serious constraint on our economic growth and consequently on employment. In view of these considerations I think there should be general consensus that we should strive to limit our imports of petroleum products as far as possible, and this means that we in turn should utilize our available supplies as cautiously and as efficiently as possible. In considering the options available to the Government to meet the present situation, it has to bear in mind the effect of further price increases on our economy and growth rate. At the same time it is apparent that we have to make all possible efforts to ensure that our essential oil requirements be secured as best as we can. It is also clear that the various sectors of the community and the different sectors of our economy must all make an equitable contribution with regard to both the payment of the premiums and the conservation of oil.

*Mr. Speaker, as I have already made known, it has been decided that our attempts to bridge the present situation will be based on the following steps:

1. Equalization fund

2. Conservation of fuel

3. Alternative fuels

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon the hon. the Minister of Transport introduced a Bill here with a view to reducing the customs and excise duty on petroleum products, money which is being deposited into the National Roads Fund. He suggested that the amount be reduced by approximately a ¼ cent. I doubt whether the Bill which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has now introduced here, will be met with the same degree of enthusiasm. However, it is true that although the Bill as it reads now, perhaps looks harmless, it concerns extremely important matters, matters which, in my opinion, should be discussed extensively and in depth by this House, due to their very important implications.

Since it is already late in the day, the subject is very important and should be discussed on a broad basis, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.