Mr. Speaker, I move—

The history of higher education in the Eastern Cape goes back as far as 1855 when St. Andrew’s College was founded at Grahamstown. It offered both junior and advanced courses and prepared students for degree examinations. St. Andrew’s established a separate College Department in 1878—10 years ago last year—which can be considered as the forerunner of Rhodes University.

After prior unsuccessful attempts a university college was founded by an Act of Parliament on 31 May 1904. It was named for Cecil John Rhodes and situated at Grahamstown, home of the present Rhodes University. Thus, this year Rhodes University is commemorating its 75th anniversary.

When looking back it is noteworthy to recall that Rhodes University College was the first institution in South Africa to instal a Chair of Law and Jurisprudence.

After steady development it was recommended in 1947 that the college be granted full university status. The Rhodes University Act, by which the new university was to be constituted, was signed by the Governor-General and assented to on 5 April 1949. It is an amendment to that Act that is being proposed in the Bill now before the House.

In 1978 there were 2 455 full-time students at Rhodes University. Approximately 1 300 of those students were from the Cape Province, 702 from the rest of the Republic and South West Africa, and 444 from beyond the borders of the Republic.

A very special feature of Rhodes University is its residential characteristics, since a very considerable percentage of those students is accommodated in 26 students’ residences.

Rhodes University has continued to grow and to keep abreast of university developments in general. In many respects, I am pleased to say, it leads the field.

Only very recently Rhodes University was permitted to establish the first Faculty of Pharmacy in Southern Africa, to be created from the university’s School of Pharmaceutical Sciences.

I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without referring again to two matters. The first is the strong claim staked by Rhodes since 1905 for the establishment of a Faculty of Veterinary Science. The second is the very advantageous position Rhodes University has through its established institutes of freshwater studies and the J. L. B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, to offer courses in fishery science, provided the necessary financial assistance can be given.

Following strong representations for the provision of university facilities at Port Elizabeth, and following an amendment to its Act, in 1960, a division of Rhodes University was formally opened at Port Elizabeth on 24 February 1961. This eventually led to the establishment of the independent University of Port Elizabeth in 1965, and thus to the Rhodes division being closed.

For some time now it has been felt that Rhodes University should continue its fine work in extending the university’s activities, and it is natural for the university to look at East London.

In turn, the East London community has for many years aspired to have university facilities available in that city. In spite of many discussions and negotiations between Rhodes University and East London very little progress was made. In late 1975, however, the then new Vice-Chancellor, Dr. D. S. Henderson, raised the matter once again when he opened the Rhodes University summer school in East London.

The immediate result was that a meeting of interested persons was convened by the then mayor of East London, Councillor Yazbek. Thereafter the whole matter received intensive attention. A survey of East London’s tertiary education needs was also conducted.

Armed with the results of this survey, the Vice-Chancellor had sufficient information to prepare an authoritative motivation for the Minister of National Education for the extension of university facilities to East London. This request has received the sympathetic consideration of the Department of National Education. In order to pave the way for this development, Rhodes University was finally asked to give attention to its Act and to prepare the necessary amendments to that Act.

The most important aspect of the Bill is to empower the university to conduct its university activities also in the municipal area and in the magisterial district of East London.

Further, provision is made, at the request of the student body, for the establishment of the Students’ Representative Council as a statutory body, as well as for the election of this council, for its composition and for ancillary matters relating thereto.

The remaining provisions of the Bill are aimed at facilitating and improving the general administration of the university’s affairs.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure on behalf of the official Opposition to declare our full support of the proposed measure, because we feel that Rhodes University should long ago have expanded to the East London area. This is not happening a day too soon. We therefore support the measure because its most important element is contained in the provisions enabling the university to establish a campus in the city of East London.

In addition, I, and all hon. members in these benches, wish to associate ourselves with the remarks by the hon. member who moved the Second Reading relating to the establishment of a faculty or department of veterinary science at Rhodes University. We believe that Rhodes is pre-eminently suited to the establishment of such a faculty.

What about Natal?

With these few words we lend our support to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I venture to support the private Bill introduced in this House by the hon. member for Albany. I do so without hesitation because it has in any event been ascertained that no person— no individual or corporate body—will be prejudiced by the legislation.

I welcome the measure before the House because I see education and training in our country as a matter deserving of constant attention and development A great deal more ought to be done in regard to tertiary education. I am pleased that Rhodes University has decided to have a part in and provide co-operation in regard to the college in East London. By doing so the university will be able to save a great deal of money which would otherwise have had to be spent on the purchase of premises in East London and the construction of buildings there and the acquisition of equipment. The decision of the university in this regard is in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the Van Wyk De Vries report and is also in accordance with the view of the Universities Advisory Council.

Universities can avail themselves of a number of different methods of expansion. There is the principle that a university can affiliate with another educational institution providing tuition of a similar nature. If use is made of this method, one has co-operation by way of affiliation. In the case of Rhodes University this will not mean affiliation, however, but it will mean co-operation. Since the technical college in East London provides education and training of a different nature, the situation here is that there is no affiliation but that there can be co-operation.

What this step will entail is that it will be possible to provide the necessary training at the tertiary level to people who would not otherwise have been able to undergo such training. This also means that existing buildings and equipment can be used in furtherance of this aim and it will even be possible to make use of the staff of the college under the supervision and control of Rhodes University.

It is therefore a great pleasure and privilege for me to support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Albany on having introduced this Bill. It was patently obvious that he had done his homework particularly well. He brought to light some very interesting facts and figures, a number of which I had some prior knowledge of because I am in the advantageous position of having been educated at no less than two of the institutions the hon. member for Albany mentioned, namely St Andrews College and Rhodes University. In fact, 20% of the hon. members in these benches were educated at Rhodes University and, of course, only 10% at Potchefstroom. [Interjections.] That is why this party is so strong. [Interjections.] Secondly, I also find it very apt that I should be supporting this Bill because the main purpose in bringing the Bill before the House is to have the facilities of Rhodes University extended into the area I have the honour of representing in this House, namely East London. I should therefore like to add my pleas to those of other hon. members in this regard.

This particular Bill is obviously the first step in the process of bringing further tertiary education facilities to East London. I therefore very sincerely hope that the process will not stop at legislation, but that positive steps will, in fact, be taken to extend the facilities of Rhodes University to the people of East London and, of course, the surrounding areas of East London. East London is sadly neglected as far as tertiary education facilities are concerned. In East London we have a technical college, in fact a very good one, but apart from the fact that there are no university courses available, I believe that we in East London also need further technic on facilities, or college for advanced technical education facilities, whichever the hon. the Minister, who is shortly to leave us, prefers. I therefore ask him to give very serious consideration, not only to doing everything possible to encourage Rhodes University to give us more facilities in East London, but also to induce his department to encourage tertiary facilities in East London by going ahead with the establishment of a technic on in that area. It is a very sad state of affairs for a town when, year after year, it sees its young people leaving the area to have their tertiary education needs fulfilled elsewhere. It is a sad thing for a town to see the youth, having just left school, taking off to different parts of South Africa in order to pursue their studies. A number of them do not come back. They meet people in other areas, they marry in other areas and they perhaps get jobs in other areas. As a result the whole community is the poorer. Again I therefore urge the hon. the Minister very, very strongly to do his utmost to implement the provisions of this Bill as far as Rhodes University is concerned and also to generally give us more tertiary education facilities in East London. Once again I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Albany. We in these benches shall support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support I have received from hon. members for this Bill. In particular I wish to convey my appreciation to the chairman of my caucus study group on National Education who also entered the debate and gave his support to this Bill. In addition, on behalf of Rhodes University I must convey my thanks to the Department of National Education, which made it possible for the matter to progress so far. For all we know we have perhaps laid the first stone of a structure which promises to be a very fine edifice in the overall development structure of the border areas of East London and the surrounding Eastern Cape. I feel that we have taken a step in the right direction, a step which could contribute towards the young people of East London staying in that part of the world. In this way support is being given to the necessary development there.

The weal and woe of Grahamstown is intimately bound up with the weal and woe of Rhodes University, and we appreciate any assistance we can get I have long been convinced that Grahamstown does not have much hope of industrial expansion. Its future lies in education and services, and it is pre-eminently in these two fields that the State can play a major role. I therefore repeat the argument which I have advanced so many times before, viz. that the State must always be willing and quick to assist in expanding and establishing facilities and services in Grahamstown.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In section 8 of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, 1964, it is provided that the State President must appoint a delimitation commission at intervals of not less than five and not more than 10 years commencing on the last preceding delimitation. Since the last delimitation took place on 23 May 1969, such a commission, in terms of section 8, would have to be appointed before 23 May 1979. However, there are two reasons why a delimitation of constituencies is neither possible nor desirable at this stage. In the first place, a general registration of voters which included 18-year-olds for the first time took place up to 1 May 1979, after which a substantial period is required for the processing and preparation of the data before they can be submitted to a delimitation commission in a meaningful form. Secondly, a delimitation in terms of existing legal requirements would provide for a mere 40 constituencies, whereas it has already been undertaken by the Government that on the termination of the term of office of the existing council, a fully elected council will be constituted which would require 60 constituencies based on the existing number of members. Moreover, in the new constitutional proposals of the Government, 82 constituents are proposed for the Coloured Parliament (or House of Representatives).

At this stage, therefore, it is not appropriate to arrange a redelimitation since there is no certainty as to whether the number of constituencies to be delimitated should be 40, 60 or the proposed 82. Consequently this matter has been referred to a committee of both Houses of Parliament.

In view of the considerations mentioned, the Executive of the CRC has also taken a decision in which it is requested that a delimitation should not take place now. By extending the maximum period in which a delimitation commission may be appointed, the appointment of the commission may therefore be postponed until the necessary data has been processed and the uncertainty relating to the further development in the constitutional sphere cleared up. After that, delimitation may proceed without delay.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has motivated this piece of legislation very clearly. We shall support the legislation in all its stages. It is clear that this extension of time is required for the reasons outlined by the hon. the Minister, reasons I do not have to repeat All I want to say is that it is clear that the fluidity in terms of constitutional proposals undoubtedly means that it is highly unlikely that the Government’s proposals will be accepted in their present forms. Certainly, some of us hope that they will not be so accepted. However, for the reasons outlined by the hon. the Minister we shall be supporting the Second Reading and other stages of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches also support the Bill. The hon. the Minister has indicated the reasons why this Bill is necessary.

However, Sir, there is one aspect which we believe to be an important one. As far as we are aware, the term of office of the existing Coloured Persons Representative Council expires in April next year, and perhaps the hon. the Minister can give some indication of what the position will be when that stage is reached. We know that at the present time by-elections are taking place, and those by-elections are obviously taking place on the basis of the existing delimitation. We believe that it is unfair that there are some constituencies which will have far more registered voters than other constituencies in terms of these by-elections. It seems a pity that the delimitation was not carried out at an earlier stage, because the provisions in the Act provide for a period of not less than five years and not more than ten years. In terms of this Bill it is now deemed necessary, for the reasons given by the hon. the Minister and we accept those reasons as being valid, to extend this term to a maximum period of 15 years.

I hope that the hon. the Minister will comment in his reply on these two matters I have raised. Otherwise we on these benches intend to support this Bill through all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a great deal of unanimity concerning this Bill. The Executive of the CRC have also declared their agreement with this Bill. The hon. the Minister mentioned two reasons why the delimitation of constituencies is not desirable at this stage. In the first place, he indicated that a general registration had already been carried out. 18-year-olds have also been included in this registration. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he can inform the House as to the progress of and participation in this registration and he number of voters who have been registered.

We on this side of the House support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members for Pinelands and Umbilo, who spoke on behalf of their respective parties, for their support of this measure. I shall come back to the issues raised by the hon. member for Umbilo.

*The hon. member for Oudtshoorn asked how things went with the general registration of voters which has just been completed. I am able to inform the House that while all the details have not yet been processed, those that have in fact been processed show a registration figure of close to 600 000. This is considerably more than the total of the previous general registration in 1974.

What is the percentage?

That is difficult to assess as we do not have the total number of potential voters.

The hon. member for Umbilo asked me what the position of the existing council would be seeing that their term of office expires in April next year. In terms of the Act of provision is made for an extension of time of the council to make the necessary arrangements for an election. But this is an issue which will be considered next year. Therefore I do not think it is necessary to go into more detail right now.

The hon. member also referred to by-elections. At the moment a by-election is taking place in the Swartberg constituency. I can assure the hon. member that fortunately by-elections are not being affected by the latest registration of voters. In these by-elections the newly registered voters, including the 18-year olds, will not be entitled to vote. In other words, in these by-elections the existing voters’ roll will be used.

Finally, I again want to express my thanks to the Opposition parties for their support of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of the National Parks Act of 1976 the management, control and maintenance of our national parks are vested in a National Parks Board of Trustees. The land taken up by national parks, is Government land, and in law no part of it may be alienated, excluded or detached from a park, except under the authority of a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

The area of some of the national parks is really very limited, and there is a need for expansion in order to make those parks more viable. The State purchases land for this purpose from time to time, but such purchases depend on the funds available. In order to make additional funds available, the National Parks Board proposed that a fund be established under its control in which voluntary subscriptions, donations and bequests from the public can be deposited. These funds will then be utilized for the purchase of land for the purposes of national parks. The National Parks Board is very confident that such a Fund will succeed in attracting considerable sums of money from the public sector. However, the problem is that the National Parks Act, 1976, does not authorize the board to spend funds that are put at its disposal, for such a purpose. In terms of the provisions of the Act the board may only utilize its funds for purposes relating to the control, management and maintenance of national parks.

In order to comply with the wish of the National Parks Board, therefore, amending legislation is required and in clause 1 of the Bill provision is now made for the establishment of the proposed Fund. The Fund will be controlled and managed by the Parks Board, but the purchase of land will be handled by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. Such land will be registered in the name of the State. Provision is also made for the auditing of the Fund, the Land Acquisition Fund, by the Auditor-General and the submission of an annual report to Parliament.

†Clause 2 of the Bill amends the definition of the area of the Kruger National Park. Firstly, the farm Diepkloof 406 K U and portion 6 of the farm Klaseriemond 15 K U are now excluded from the proclaimed area of the park. The exclusion from the area of the Kruger National Park of these two farms was in fact approved by Parliament in 1962. At that time the said farms, which were cut off from the rest of the park by a fence erected to restrict the movement of carriers of foot and mouth diseases, were handed back to the State, together with several other properties, in exchange for certain other land which was previously acquired and included in the park. The decision of Parliament in this regard is contained in the report of the Select Committee on State-owned Land which was approved on 6 June 1962 in this House and on 12 June 1962 in the Other Place. The boundary description of the park has unfortunately never been adjusted, with the result that these two farms, which are now in private ownership, still form part of the proclaimed area of the park.

A further amendment of the definition of the area of the Kruger National Park concerns its north-western boundary. In this area the Levuvhu River, or the Pafuri River, as it is commonly known, forms part of the boundary between Venda and the park. During negotiations with the Government of Venda representations were made that the middle of the river be accepted, in accordance with international practice, as the boundary between Venda and the Républic. After consideration the Government agreed to the request and the boundary of the Kruger National Park as set out in schedule 1 to the Act will accordingly have to be adjusted as proposed in clause 2 of the Bill.

*An agreement will be concluded in due course to cover matters such as the upkeep of a common fence for the control of stock diseases, the movement of animals, etc.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, clause 1 of the Bill inserts a new section in the National Parks Act, 1976, to provide for a Fund to be known as the National Parks Land Acquisition Fund. It is intended that this Fund should consist of money received by the National Parks Board by way of subscriptions, donations and bequests for the purchase of land for the purposes of a park.

This Bill is to be welcomed as a step in the right direction. I think it has always been a matter for pride in South Africa that we have national parks which are a tremendous attraction for visitors and an asset to the community at large. The quality of our national parks has also been a matter for considerable pride. This Bill will receive the support of the official Opposition because it underlines the need for further land to be purchased and set aside to enlarge our existing parks or to create new parks.

Although the quality of our national parks is satisfactory, I regret to have to say that with regard to quantity, in other words total area, we lag very badly indeed behind many other countries in the world and in Africa itself. This Bill, we hope, will improve that situation. I would go so far as to say that the amount of land set aside for national parks in South Africa is so small that we should in fact be ashamed. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture pointed out on a previous occasion that the Government had in the last 10 years made available considerable areas of land, some of it to the various provincial administrations—I think land was made available to all four provincial administrations. This land amounted in total to something like 60 000 ha. They also exchanged 20 300 ha of Ntlaveni bordering on the National Park and have given an additional 5 000 ha of land, comprising the farm Riemvasmaak, to the Augrabies National Park.

All this proves that the Government is moving in the right direction, but I think it would interest hon. members if I gave some statistics indicating just how badly we lag behind other countries in this respect. Firstly, it might be interesting to compare figures in relation to the larger parks here and in other parts of the world—and I have taken as the basis of comparison our position in respect of parks of more than 100 000 ha in extent. In the USA, which is a country considerably bigger than ours, there are 16 such parks. The same thing applies to Russia where there are 15 such parks. In Australia there are 12; in Canada, 10; in Africa in Zambia, 10; in Japan, 8; and in South Africa there are only 2. Bearing in mind that Japan is a country small in area and very densely populated, I think this is a startling figure. However, let us look at further statistics, this time comparing the percentage of the total land areas set aside for national parks here and in other countries in Africa. These are statistics for 1976. South Africa has set aside 2 938 208 ha, which is 2,4% of the total land area. Botswana has set aside 10 007 300 ha which is 14,05% of the total land area. They have therefore set aside something like three times as much as we have set aside. Kenya has set aside 6 506 500 ha, which is 11,16% of the total land area. Tanzania has set aside 7 903 176 ha, which is 8,43% of their total land area. Zambia has set aside 5 899 400 ha, which is 7,91% of the total land area. Even Rhodesia, which is less than half the size of South Africa, has set aside 2 222 519 ha, which is 5,7% of its total land area. I think we therefore have to accept that we do not actually shape well when we compare ourselves with the rest of Africa. When we compare ourselves, in terms of percentages, with countries such as the USA, we again do not show up in a very good light. These figures indicate quite clearly that we are lagging behind.

There is also no doubt at all that pressure on land becomes greater every day, and so it becomes more and more difficult to find land to establish more national parks or to enlarge existing ones. It is also factual that some areas of existing parks are threatened because of the need to develop mineral resources, for example the prospecting in the Kruger National Park.

We welcome this Bill because we think it will encourage private benefactors to give money for the purpose of buying additional land. But I should like to say that I believe that this Bill should go further. I would like to see a commitment by this Parliament—and this is not a political matter, but one that is of general concern for all members of Parliament—to appropriate money on an annual basis, money that will also be paid into this Fund. This would enable the Fund to build up reserves to enable them to purchase land on an increasing scale. I think that provision should be made in this Bill for such appropriated money to go into the Fund. In terms of section 16 of the National Parks Act the National Parks Board receives, as part of its revenue, annual grants-in-aid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament. This is normally to meet expenditure of any kind in any one year. I would like to think of the National Parks Land Acquisition Fund as a special reserve, apart from normal expenditure and running costs. It is my intention to move an amendment during the Committee Stage in order to make allowances for annual appropriation by Parliament to be paid into the Fund. I would request the hon. the Deputy Minister to persuade the Government to increase the amount of money that is set aside each year for National Parks. I shall motivate that further during the Committee Stage. It has often been said that although the percentage of land set aside for National Parks in South Africa is small in relation to the total area of the Republic, one must not forget that land which falls under the provincial administrations, and also under the Department of Forestry, must also be considered. My answer to that is that this sort of land does not enjoy the status of a national park as it is not completely inviolate.

What is the difference?

The difference is that forestry land can be sold off and is, in fact, sold off every day. Every year there is a question concerning forestry land of one sort or another before Parliament.

It is not done without the consent of Parliament.

There are also other things that happen to forestry land. We discussed this matter only the other day. There is, for example, the building of a dam on forestry land for other purposes than forestry purposes. I am not against this, but as far as I am concerned, it does emphasize the fact that forestry land is not inviolate. In regard to provincial land, the situation exists right now that a Natal park, under the control of the Natal Parks Board is threatened by the possible building of a dam on the Umfolozi River. The hon. the Minister of Forestry should know about that as well.

We can talk about that tomorrow.

Yes. We shall talk about that tomorrow.

The whole principle behind the establishment of national parks is that we conserve land and put it in trust for future generations. There is always a tremendous temptation, as pressure on land and needs for land grow, to justify fewer parks so that there can be more land for farming, for industrial development, for mining and for new dams. These pressures must be resisted, however, and that is why we welcome this Bill. This Fund must be built up to a stage where a lot more land can be set aside before it is too late.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has explained to the House that clause 2 of the Bill is a regularization of a position that has already been put to Parliament some 17 years ago, and it is therefore obvious that the matter would have had to be put right some time or another. We have no objection to this.

With these remarks I wish to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister and anticipate a favourable answer to the suggested amendments that I am going to move later.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that to a large extent we have consensus in the House as far as our pride in the national parks in South Africa is concerned. I believe the national parks that we have—and here I include the nature conservation projects of the various provinces— make a very considerable contribution to the fact that South Africa is attracting tourists who come to view these attractions. This is in fact a method we are employing to sell South Africa’s image.

I am glad the hon. member for Orange Grove is supporting this legislation. I believe the hon. member is perhaps not on the right track as regards the plea which he made here, viz. that provision should be made in the budget for a certain amount to be paid into this fund every year.

As members of the National Parks Board, we have found that there are real nature lovers—people who love nature and are conservation conscious—who would like to make money available to the National Parks Board via their estates or in some other way. As the Act reads at the moment, we cannot use that money to acquire land. That money can only be utilized in accordance with the provisions of the present National Parks Board Act.

Some of our parks have insufficient space, and purchases must be made. I have in mind in particular the Bontebok Park in the Cape. Tremendous expansion could be effected here. The bontebok is an indigenous Cape species. I believe posterity has been done a major service, firstly by the Provincial Administration of the Cape—and we want to give them the credit—and secondly by the National Parks Board by preserving that particular species. Hon. members who have paid a visit to Swellendam will know that this is a park which covers a very small area. Land must be purchased. Representations have been made to the Government and we hope the Government will perhaps make more funds available to us. If we have such a fund at our disposal, however, it can be utilized for the purchase of properties there or elsewhere where suitable land is available for this species.

The Addo Elephant Park is a beautiful park but limited, too, as far as space is concerned. There is room for large-scale expansion there. There could be large-scale expansion to the north up to the Suurberge. It could become a beautiful park—perhaps one of the finest in the Eastern Cape—if this could be done. But money is required for this. We hope this Fund will be swelled by benefactors in the Eastern Cape so that expansion of that kind can take place.

Conservation is practised at that beautiful park in Cradock—I do not know how many hon. members have been there—in order to preserve the Cape mountain zebra there. This park, too, has a limited area. Large funds have very recently been made available by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for the purchase of adjacent farms. The amount is insufficient, however, and further purchases will have to be made. A fund of this kind will assist us in this respect. Large donations have been made by the Nature Foundation of South Africa for the establishment of the beautiful Karoo Park in Beaufort West. This donation of land is a major gift to us. There, too, large scale purchases will have to be made. I have now singled out a few aspects in order to indicate what still has to be done to enlarge these parks.

I want to say today—and I think I largely agree with the thinking of the hon. member for Orange Grove—that even more space will have to be made available for national parks in South Africa. But we must be grateful, too. Since the Government came to power in 1948, three parks have been established. There is the Gemsbok Park, the park near Cradock which people used as grazing land at the time—there has not really been a great deal of conservation work there—and the Kruger National Park. While the NP has been in power the present Bontebok Park was established. [Interjections.] The old Bontebok Park was situated along the coast. The land for the present Bontebok Park was purchased by this Government. [Interjections.] We established the Augrabies Park too. The Karoo Park also came into being as a result of the Government’s initiative. I do not want to make politics out of this, but it is necessary to give credit where credit is due. [Interjections.] What I am saying now, is history. [Interjections.] It is history and hon. members of the Opposition cannot get away from it. [Interjections.] For that reason we can support this Bill with an open mind. Many nature lovers have already indicated that they should like to make money available for the establishment of such a fund. This is money which will be properly controlled and managed by the National Parks Board. Annual reports on that fund, on how the money is invested and utilized, will be submitted to Parliament. Therefore, I believe Parliament can rest assured, knowing that a fund such as this will be in good hands.

On behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I have pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Edenvale said. I support him wholeheartedly in what he said.

†Mr. Speaker, I should also like to support almost everything the hon. member for Orange Grove said. I think he made a very good speech. I think there is a vast degree of agreement among hon. members on what the hon. member for Orange Grove said. He did say a few things, however, which were, strictly speaking, not quite correct He said, for example, that the provincial parks are not inviolate. That is, of course, not true. They are inviolate. They are not inalienable. That is a different thing altogether. To that extent I agree with him.

Another thing the hon. member for Orange Grove has said and which is slightly misleading, is that 2,9 million hectares were set aside for nature conservation. Later in his speech he mentioned in passing that extensive stretches of forestry land was also available for nature conservation. It is interesting to look at the figures mentioned in that respect by the hon. the Minister of Forestry in his speech at the official opening of the Fynbos Reserve, in the southern Cape, recently. He said that national parks comprised 2,9 million hectares.

The figure he gave, 1,3 million hectares of forestry land refers to that area of land which is not afforested and cannot be afforested, but which has, nevertheless, been set aside as a wilderness area. I take the hon. member’s point entirely; that that land is not inalienable. However, I believe it is certainly subject to the closest possible protection and that comprises a total land area of 1,3 million hectares. The figure mentioned by the hon. member when he referred to Great Britain in fact also includes forestry reserves in that country, reserves which are as inviolate as our own forestry reserves. Therefore, his comparison is not quite valid.

In the Cape Province there are 33 700 hectares; in Natal, 258 000 hectares; in the Orange Free State, 71 800 hectares; and in the Transvaal, 93 000 hectares of land set aside for nature conservation by the Provinces. This does not include all the parks, some of which are of considerable importance, but which fall under municipalities, other local authorities and also under the Department of Fisheries. I am thinking, for example, of the Cape Point Nature Reserve and many others. Other than that, however, I agree with him entirely. I think he is right. One cannot but congratulate the hon. the Minister on having introduced this measure. I think it will be generally welcomed and will have a profound, far-reaching effect upon conservation in South Africa. It is important for us to create—and to recognize the need for creating—and maintaining genetic reservoirs for the flora and fauna of South Africa, reservoirs where they can survive undisturbed. Equally important, however, is the fact that these genetic reservoirs, these conservation areas, should be ecologically viable and self-sustaining. That is very important. It is not only important from the point of view of the flora and fauna. If we look at the rate of industrialization of South Africa and the rate of population growth in South Africa, and recognize the difficulties and social problems that go with living in big urban concentrations, we see why the exponential population growth goes hand in hand with an exponentially growing need for people to go to places where they can recharge their nerve batteries and regenerate their souls.

There is an interesting point one should note. Apart from one’s responsibility to the succeeding generations of man and nature, and apart from the very important point mentioned by the hon. member for Orange Grove, i.e. that there are great tourist benefits and therefore economic benefits in conservation, particularly as far as national parks are concerned, one should also look at a couple of other interesting aspects. Game farming, for example on the marginal land in the Cape and in other parts of the country, is becoming an important activity for farmers in those areas. The provincial parks and the national parks both play a great regenerative role in as much as they are repositories for game, repositories from which the regeneration process can take place or from which herds can be re-established. For example, a particular species like the springbok in the Karroo has grown very small and stunted. Big rams can be brought in from the Kalahari Park and other areas and the species can then be built up again.

We also see this as far as the wild-flower industry is concerned. This is becoming an important money-spinner. For example, protease and other plants are becoming important export commodities. Here the floral reserves serve as a repository for those species. An interesting point I should like to mention is that we do not realize what benefits future generations will derive from the species we protect now. It is interesting that recently a wild grass was discovered in the Andes. This perennial wild grass is of the same botanical family as maize. By selective breeding, crossing it with existing maize strains, there is the prospect of possible perennial maize crops. This also serves to illustrate that the benefits of conservation are manifold.

The Bill is vital because our reserves are often too small to be self-sustaining. One therefore often runs the risk of having all one’s genetic eggs in one ecological basket, Although I know that the National Parks Board is very aware of that, and does do good work by exchanging animals to spread the risk as much as it can, the smallness of the conservation areas is nevertheless a very real problem indeed. The Bill is further to be welcomed, of course, because conservation cannot only be the State’s responsibility. In this regard there is an avenue being opened up for public involvement, or let me rather say more public involvement than there is at present, in the form of donations.

I should, however, like to make one suggestion. I do not want an answer from the hon. the Minister right now. He could just consider what I am going to say now and perhaps discuss it later with officials of the National Parks Board and other officials. I wonder if we could not possibly also consider putting into this Fund for land acquisition those moneys obtained from fines for poaching and from the sale of wild animals in the parks. I mention this because there is a precedent for it. The Natal Parks Board, for example, has an ordinance in terms of which it is allowed to set aside up to R200 000 per year of the revenue obtained from the sale of game. This amount can be set aside for land acquisition. I think that is a very good thing. If one looks at the figures made available by the International Union for Conservation, it is true that the norm which is applied internationally is that every civilized country should set aside something like 10% of its surface area for nature conservation. It is also true that we in South Africa are about halfway there. It is also true that a country such as Great Britain conserves 19% of its total surface area notwithstanding the fact that it has a population of almost 60 million. I think this is a tremendous percentage. When one looks at the population growth in South Africa, at the low density of our population and at the size of South Africa and therefore at the great many eco-systems which need protection, one realizes that we are perhaps the last generation that will have the opportunity to set aside large viable pieces of land. In that regard we have a great responsibility.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has mentioned that the national parks of South Africa occupy some 2,9 million ha, but what is interesting is that of that 2,9 million ha, 2,3 million ha, or over 80%, is occupied by two national parks: the Kalahari Gemsbok Park and the Kruger National Park. This demonstrates how potentially vulnerable the rest of the country is.

Although it has not been mentioned here today, I think it is equally important—in fact, we have discussed the matter earlier during the session—to refer to the question of marine parks. Marine parks form part of the whole question of conservation and they also form part of the entire function of the National Parks Board. It is interesting to know that whereas in the Cape alone we have some 2 000 km of coastline, only 103 km of that coastline is partially or absolutely protected. In this connection one can once again refer to the position in Europe. One can mention figures applying to Germany or Great Britain. In Great Britain, for example, 300 miles of the coastline is being protected notwithstanding the size of the island.

There are some very urgent priorities for which a Fund like the one I have suggested can and should be used. An absolute priority is the setting aside of a reserve in upper Namaqualand to protect the Richtersveld. Conservationists have talked about that for a long time and I can assure the House that that is an absolute priority. It is one of the finest, but at the same time one of the most vulnerable areas of the world. It is the area which has the finest collection of succulents in the world. In the northern Cape the acacia thorn veld is completely unprotected. It is an urgent priority that something should be done to ensure the protection of at least a part of that area. Somebody mentioned the Döhne of the eastern Cape which is largely unprotected but for a few species reserves. In the western Cape we have the coastal fynbos, or coastalforelands, as it is known, but it has retreated into only 5% of its former size. It is entirely unprotected but for a tiny species reserve.

We are grateful for this measure. I think it is going to have far-reaching consequences. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is to be congratulated for having introduced this legislation. I think we have much for which we can be thankful. It has been mentioned that in September this year we shall see the opening of the Karoo Park at Beaufort West. In August of this year we shall see the opening of the park at Graaff-Reinet to protect the Karoo and Karooid plant species. In both of those instances I must commend the work of Dr. Rupert and the S.A. Nature Foundation.

With the park at Graaff-Reinet a very important new concept is initiated in South Africa. Dr. Rupert saw the Graaff-Reinet village, the whole fabric of society and the surrounding Karoo as one. He helped in the acquisition of the land around it to harmonize the beauty of what has been constructed at Graaff-Reinet with the area that surrounds it. We see this concept in Great Britain and in Germany. In Great Britain more than 250 000 people live within parks and the same type of development is to be seen in Germany. However, I do not want to go into that any further at this stage.

I simply want to say that we welcome this step and we would encourage the public to donate to the fullest possible extent so that effect can be given to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches intended to support the Second Reading, but I must say that we are now having some very serious second thoughts about it as the result of the speech of the hon. member for Edenvale. He is the sort of person who, when he sees a reference to “National Parks Board”, can only think of what the NP has been doing. We got here a long story of what has happened since 1948. Then he says: “Ek wil nie politiek daarvan maak nie!”

Oh, no!

All of a sudden the approach is: “This is what we have been doing; where have you guys been all these years?” There was not a word of recognition for anything done by anybody else, but only talk of what that hon. member thinks he and his party have been doing in the cause of conservation “since 1948”, as he put it, the year which we have called in our time “the year of the second rinderpest”.

I want to appoint you on the Parks Board. You must not spoil your chances.

The hon. the Minister can appoint me instead of him. Let him chuck that hon. member off and appoint me in his stead. That is an excellent idea. If the hon. the Minister wants a private member’s motion on that, I shall move it for him.

Sir, I want to say to the House that, obviously, we shall support the Bill. The whole concept of conservation has changed since 1948. I think it is true to say that, since the war years, there has been a growing realization throughout the world that there are many species that are endangered. In the old days before the war, those lovely days when we grew up, it really never occurred to people that game resources were not absolutely endless but could be depleted to the point where they could be destroyed. In municipalities, all the provinces and every group of people throughout South Africa who think about conservation, one finds the realization that we need to preserve.

Amongst private people too.

Yes, that is right As the hon. member for Maitland mentioned, smaller areas rather than big areas are being set aside to protect special features of our flora and fauna. I think that that is probably preferable because throughout the country one finds areas in which specific plants or a particular population of game occur.

The hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned that in South Africa we only have two parks of over 100 000 ha. The problem we have in South Africa in that regard is that in most of the country the climate is temperate. In countries like the USA and Great Britain there are vast areas which, being mountainous, are really not habitable. Many of them are snow-covered. As a result, people just cannot live there. It is then the easiest thing in the world to declare these areas as parks which people can visit and so on. In South Africa, on the other hand, there has been intense pressure on land and virtually the whole of the country, apart from the desert areas, has been occupied by man. We are now in the position that we are behind in the race and that we have to catch up. That costs money and that is why we welcome the provisions contained in the Bill before the House.

What about your second thoughts?

Well, Sir, my first thoughts were the right ones. The hon. member made me have second thoughts. My third thoughts are again the right thoughts, because they are that we will support this Bin.

The point is that we now have to acquire funds in one way or another in order to catch up and establish a desirable balance. I think it is important to recognize the contribution that is being made by the Department of Forestry. I do not think we should ignore this. I do not think we should say that, because the areas under the control of that department are not closed to the public, reserves for game or something like that, they do not play a very, very important part in the recreational life of the people as a whole. That is, after all, really what the game parks are for. They are for people who, subjected to the pressures of town life in this country, want to get out and relax and see nature as God made it. The forest areas are designed for that. Vast areas are being bought up and preserved in their natural state as water catchment areas. That in itself is a very worthy consideration. Plans are now being made to give people access to those areas on a basis different to that applied by the National Parks Board. A different concept is involved, but it allows people access to those areas. This is a new concept which, I think, is also gaining credence and popularity overseas. It is not simply a question of preserving the animals, although the animals are of course important. In my opinion, however, we have lots of places in South Africa to which people have access to see animals. What we want to do is specialize in the rare things in our country.

Like Parliament!

Mr. Speaker, in Parliament one sees some very rare animals, that’s for sure. Not inside, but… [Interjections.] However, I have one problem which I would like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister. The Bill makes provision for the National Parks Board to administer the Fund and to recover from the Fund some of the expenses for running it I do not know how the expenses in running a Fund of this nature can be of such an onerous nature that the board might not be able to run it from its own resources and allow the money which has been donated, collected or in any way given to the board for the purpose of acquiring land, to remain intact and to be devoted for that purpose. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister, even if he cannot take a decision today, to consider between now and the introduction of the Bill in the Other Place, whether it is possible that the board itself undertakes the cost of administering the Fund, so as to allow the moneys in the Fund to remain intact I further want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: Where there are municipalities and other organizations who have specialized in certain areas of certain parks to highlight features of natural interest in those areas, can money from this Fund be used for such a purpose or is the money only to be used for the purpose of extending areas under the control of the National Parks Board? Will it be possible to make donations or grants, or something like that, for the purpose which I have mentioned?

Sir, we on these benches will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my gratitude to the two Opposition parties for their support of the Bill. I should also like to express my great appreciation for the exceptional insight into nature conservation which has been displayed here. It was a pleasure to listen to the opinions on the value of nature conservation which hon. members expressed. I have the greatest appreciation for them and I believe it does the country a great deal of good if the representatives of the people in this House show such a profound knowledge of this very interesting aspect of our nature conservation.

†I now want to react to certain questions posed by hon. members. I found the figures given by the hon. member for Orange Grove of tremendous interest. When comparing the amount of land set aside for parks in different countries, one must always bear in mind the availability of land, especially agricultural land, and the quality of such land. In this connection I want to endorse what the hon. member for Mooi River said. In our country it is well-known that only a very small portion of the available agricultural land is high-potential land, whereas in the northern hemisphere the land which is used for agricultural purposes is practically 80% to 90% high-potential land, with a rainfall which is very much higher than that in South Africa. So, to ensure the production of agricultural products in a country like South Africa, where there is low rainfall and very little high-potential land, one must always try to maintain a balance to ensure that there is enough agricultural products available. I make this point because I think it is very necessary that when one talks about acquiring land for national parks, one must always try to maintain a balance in this regard.

*The hon. member for Maitland requested that the possibility be considered that the money collected by way of fines imposed on poachers as well as the money obtained from the sale of game, be paid into this Fund. I consider this an interesting idea and I shall definitely follow it up.

The hon. member for Mooi River spoke about the management of the Fund. With reference to certain expenditures he asked whether the Fund will now have to cover them. I believe the expenses incurred in this regard will be so minimal that it will really be unnecessary to take much notice of them. I want to give the hon. member the assurance, however, that I shall consider that, too, and that we shall talk to the Parks Board about it in order to see whether they too are of the opinion that this will be at all necessary.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove intends moving an amendment, and I think that we should rather discuss that in the Committee Stage, if the hon. member will agree to that?

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I shall in a short while motivate the amendment I intend to move. If I may, I should first like to react to some comments made by other hon. members at the Second Reading stage. I believe that there are various areas in the country which are not particularly good farming land and in some cases are no good at all as farming land, but which would nevertheless be very suitable for national parks. An area that comes to mind immediately is the Koue Bokkeveld. There are sections of the Koue Bokkeveld which I think have unique eco-systems and which are not good agricultural land. These are areas in which a national park of one sort or another could be established.

I also believe we need more marine parks. I am very pleased about the marine parks that have been established in the last few years. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister will probably be aware of a report on potential marine parks along the South African coastline. There are other areas which could be set aside as national parks without any damaging effect to agriculture at all. I think these are the sort of areas we should consider using to extend our national parks.

I raised a question about moneys voted by Parliament. The Bill provides for the setting up of a National Parks Land Acquisition Fund. The proposed section 12A(2) reads—

1. (a) all money received by the board by way of subscriptions, donations and bequests for the purchase of land …

I believe Parliament should commit itself, preferably on an annual basis, to making funds available for this purpose. I know that in terms of section 16 of the National Parks Act money can be set aside in a particular year for a particular purchase the National Parks Board might want to make. However, I believe that if one builds up a reserve one is going to be better able to meet expensive buying requirements when they come about. At the moment, if one is using an annual budget to purchase additional land for the national parks and a major acquisition is considered, it is unlikely to be met because the money is simply not available. I realize, however, that there is not all that much sense in leaving Government funds lying around idle, but I believe that if one builds up a reserve and a proposition is then put to the hon. the Minister to appropriate a certain amount of money, because he will know that a good percentage of that money can come from the Fund, we are more likely to be in a situation where that scheme could go ahead. If one is considering purchases of up to R½ million in any one year, this might well be met in an annual budget, but if one is going to make major purchases—and I think there is room in South Africa for major purchases—a much larger sum of money will be involved. I also believe that, if one is going to encourage private benefactors to leave money in their wills and to make donations and one is going to encourage private enterprise and companies to donate money for this purpose, if the Government shows it good intentions by saying that it, too, will contribute towards a particular purchase, it will encourage people to make those bequests or donations. The purpose of my amendment is purely and simply to allow the Fund to receive money by way of an annual appropriation by Parliament. I therefore move—

1. (b) all money received by the board by way of an annual appropriation by Parliament for that purpose;

I am not in any way suggesting how much should be appropriated for this purpose; I am asking the House to accept the principle that money which is appropriated by Parliament could be paid into the Fund and I am also suggesting that we should accept the principle that an annual appropriation should be made, because I believe that by so doing we will be giving recognition to the necessity—and it is a very dire necessity—to increase the areas of national park land.

Before completing my speech, I should just like to say one thing in response to the hon. member for Mooi River. He suggested that this money might be made available to municipalities or other local authorities by way of a loan to advance conservation needs. I do not think that I would support this. Obviously one must consider the matter, but I believe that there is so desperate and crying a need to purchase more land for national parks that one must not be deviated from a direct commitment to purchase that land. One appreciates the fact that many local authorities have land available or could acquire land which would be of immense benefit as far as the whole cause of conservation is concerned, but I believe that this should be financed from other sources and that the matter before us should be restricted entirely to additional land purchases for national parks. Therefore, I do not think that I would like to support that particular suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, I am very interested indeed in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove and I shall be interested to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply, but I must confess that I think the hon. member is asking this House and the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept something which binds this Parliament and future Parliaments, which I think would really be a difficult thing for the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept However, because I feel that the amendment contains an idea which does deserve sympathetic consideration by the House, I wonder whether it might not be possible to restructure the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove so that the new paragraph (b) would read: “All money received by way of appropriation as made by Parliament from time to time for the purpose of a particular project” I want to draw to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister the practice followed by the Department of Water Affairs where a White Paper is submitted for a particular project, for example, the building of a dam. Experience has shown that the amount mentioned in the White Paper is really a tentative amount. A scheme is put forward for a dam at a cost of, say, R12 million and is passed by the House, while we know perfectly well that by the time the dam is completed the amount may be R24 million or over R30 million. However, I shall talk about that tomorrow. The hon. member for Orange Grove concedes the point that it is difficult for the State to appropriate money which will then lie in a Fund. I think it would probably be more to the point—if I may use those words—or more appropriate to Parliament’s purpose, if the National Parks Board had the right to approach Parliament with a specific project and that money be appropriated for that purpose, money that would then go into this Fund. I have an objection to this House committing itself now, by this amendment, to the principle of an annual grant of money to the Fund, money which will lie in the fund until the Fund reaches a certain point I think it would be far better if an appropriation were made which would meet the requirements of the board and be paid in one shot I think that would better achieve what the hon. member is aiming at.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Deputy Minister replies, I would like to say that I do not think that that will serve the purpose. At the moment the National Parks Board is able to approach Parliament and to ask for an appropriation for a specific project. Money could therefore be made available, and is made available from time to time. My point is that if a fairly large amount of money is needed, it is unlikely to be granted by Parliament because it would have to come out in one bite from departmental funds in one year. If one has a strategic reserve, one will be better able to look at large projects—and I believe we have to think big in this regard—and there will be more hope that Parliament will agree to make up any shortfall on the purchase of a major portion of land.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that we have to discuss an aspect here which has been raised very suddenly. I must add at once, however, that the hon. member for Orange Grove has apologized for introducing the amendment at a very late stage. But as a result one cannot debate it very meaningfully. If I have to use my common sense, however, I do not believe that Parliament will agree to putting aside an amount of money every year, particularly not in times when there is a shortage of funds.

It need only be R100.

I do not think that Parliament will agree to the principle, and that is, in my opinion, what we have to discuss. The amount appropriated, can be R100, R500 or R500 000, but the fact is that we will then be accepting in principle that we shall deposit a sum of money into the Fund each year. There are many bodies and boards that could now come forward and perhaps make out an equally good case and argue that Parliament has already accepted the principle and that they are therefore also entitled to something every year. In the second place, I believe that it is bad budgeting. As the hon. member for Edenvale said, Parliament has been very kindly disposed towards the National Parks Board over the years, in the sense that every time they have come forward with a project which they wanted financed— this applies in particular to the purchasing of land—Parliament, as far as I know, has never refused. To anticipate this now would be bad budgeting. In the third place, I have reservations. We want to encourage people from outside through this legislation—people in their private capacities, organizations, etc.— to invest money in the Fund by way of bequests or donations. If we were to agree now that the State should also invest money every year, I think we would be discouraging precisely what we want to achieve. People who are considering investing money in the Fund in their wills or by way of private donations, will now say that the State is paying money into it every year in any case. Why should they do the same? I think that is going to discourage private donations, and that would be in conflict with what we are trying to achieve by this legislation. That is my initial reaction in regard to the matter.

Therefore I really do not think that we can accept this amendment, taking into account the circumstances which I have now sketched for the hon. member for Orange Grove. However, I want to add at once that I sympathize with his idea, viz. that we should attempt to build up a Fund which will be large enough to meet the needs of the National Parks Board. But I think that we differ somewhat as to the way in which we want to achieve this.

Mr. Chairman, let me assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that I am not fighting with him. I think we are trying to achieve the same thing. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument is that a State contribution might well be counter-productive. People would feel that the State is responsible and that they would not have to do anything to do about it. But I do not think that will happen. I gave consideration, when drafting this amendment, to the possibility of committing the State to match donations on a rand for rand basis. However, after consideration I decided that one could not commit the State to this sort of thing at all.

As I said by way of an interjection to the hon. the Deputy Minister, it need only to be R100. However, I also think that one has to accept the principle that we do, as Parliament, commit ourselves to annual appropriations in many different directions. We commit ourselves to paying money to Water Affairs or Co-operation and Development. I want to give this matter—the acquisition of land for national parks—a status that it at present does not enjoy.

I did give the hon. the Deputy Minister very short notice. I was not aware of the fact that we would take all the stages of this Bill. Could I therefore suggest to him that between here and the Other Place the matter be given consideration by him? Perhaps, after consideration it, he might be more disposed towards acceptance of the principle that I am trying to outline. If the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with that—and I think he has indicated that he would—I would withdraw my amendment.

I should prefer not to compromise myself at all at this stage. I promise, however, that I shall certainly give further attention to this. If it is at all possible, I shall introduce it.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposed amendment to section 2 of the principal Act seeks to reduce by three the membership of the Agricultural Credit Board, as established under the Act. The Act initially provided for a board consisting of 10 members. In 1970, the Act was made applicable to South West Africa as well. At that stage, provision was made for a membership of 12, so that a committee of the board, consisting of three members, could be appointed for the territory. In view of the new dispensation for South West Africa, the Administrator-General appointed a full-fledged board for the territory as from 1 August 1978. The membership of the Agricultural Credit Board, the functions of which are limited to the Republic, can now be reduced to nine, therefore. This number will offer sufficient representation to both the agricultural departments concerned and the farming sector.

At the same time, provision is made for special terms and conditions where the board assists a farmer who is less well-endowed with capital by letting to him State land, with an option to buy. Under the existing provisions of the Act, the board may sell or let to a farmer or prospective farmer State land which in the opinion of the board is suitable for farming purposes. Interest is payable at a rate of 5% a year in respect of such assistance, in terms of the provisions of the Act, and where such land is let, an annual rental of 5% a year of the economic agricultural value of the property concerned is levied. This means that when undeveloped agricultural land has hitherto been allocated in terms of the existing provisions under a lease or a deed of sale, the farmer has had to possess sufficient funds of his own not only to develop the farming unit effectively, but also to meet the capital and interest or rent obligations. When a farmer did not have such capital funds, and could not afford either to pay rent at an economic rate right from the start, he could therefore not be helped under the Act to acquire such agricultural land. The proposed addition in section 10 will remedy this deficiency. In essence, it means that it will be possible to let agricultural land to a farmer for a period of five years, but not exceeding 10 years, with the option to buy it, and that more favourable lease conditions than the present ones will apply. For the first two years of the lease, no rental will be payable. For the third and fourth years, the rental will be 2% of the purchase price, and for the fifth year and any further period by which the lease may be extended, the annual rental will be 5% of the purchase price. Especially the farmer who is just beginning will be enabled by this to establish himself.

†Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the deletion of paragraph (a) of section 35(1) of the principal Act. Section 35 of the Act relates to the registration of a number of special conditions or restrictions against the title deeds of immovable property when assistance is rendered against security of a mortgage bond. One of the said restrictions implies that the property may not be subdivided without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture. Since 1970 control over the subdivision of agricultural land is exercised in terms of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970. Endorsements in terms of section 35(1)(a) of the Agricultural Credit Act are therefore no longer required. This also explains why provision is made in clause 5 for the cancellation of such an existing title condition prohibiting the subdivision of agricultural land without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and the removal of restrictions imposed in terms of the said section 35(l)(a).

Section 37 of the principal Act makes provision for the attachment and sale in execution by the Minister of immovable property which has been mortgaged in favour of the State, in order to recover outstanding amounts in respect of assistance granted. Furthermore the Minister is empowered to purchase such property out of moneys appropriated by Parliament. This is being done to ensure that the mortgaged property is not sold for less than the economic valuation while the proceeds thereof will not be sufficient to cover the claim of the State. However no provision is made for such purchase by the State as mortgagee when such property is sold by another creditor by virtue of a judgment or in terms of the Land Bank Act. The object of clause 4 is to cover such a situation.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill. The most important amendment is the one in connection with the proposed new section 10(2A), and this amendment comes at a very important time in the history of the agricultural sector. If I understand the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly, a special arrangement is being made here to make it possible for the younger farmer who has a shortage of capital to enter agriculture. We on this side of the House have long been concerned about the fact that the number of active farmers is dropping rapidly and that the average age of our farming community is rising rapidly. In other words, the problem is that younger men are not prepared, or do not have the capital, to enter agriculture. The arrangement in the proposed new section 10(2A) can also be used, of course, to attract farmers to certain areas. I am thinking, for example, of some of our border districts where the State owns potential agricultural land. In this connection, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to elaborate a little on the possibility of using this arrangement to help check the rapid depopulation of those areas. I am referring to the border areas of South Africa where land with agricultural potential is in fact available. As is known to all of us in this House, there are problems in this respect. I think it would be appropriate, therefore, if the department could also use this arrangement to help attract the farming community to those areas again so that the industries there may continue and the workers there may be provided with jobs.

There are a number of questions I should like to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believe that the House would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister how many viable agricultural units he intends to make available to prospective farmers in terms of this system within the current financial year. I also want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how and when the availability of these agricultural units will be advertised. These are new and very favourable terms which are being offered. I should therefore be glad if all interested prospective young farmers could be given an equal chance to apply. Of course, this would mean that the agricultural units concerned would have to be advertised in such a way that they would come to the attention of everyone who might be interested. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to say a little more about this. It would also be a great help if the hon. the Deputy Minister could tell us whether, in addition to these very reasonable terms for the acquisition of land, the tenants may be offered any further financial aid in the form of cash. If aid in the form of capital is to be forthcoming, it would be illuminating to know what the average amount of aid would be which the hon. the Deputy Minister expects to make available to such prospective farmers and buyers of land.

There are two points that I wish to refer to before I come to the other clauses. There are two amendments already printed in my name on the Order Paper which I shall move in the Committee Stage. The one relates to something which I consider to be a translating error. The second one is an addition to the conditions to be imposed upon prospective tenants with an option to buy. Both these amendments are self-explanatory and we shall of course discuss them in the Committee Stage. However, I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister even at this stage that the amendment aimed at imposing upon the prospective buyer certain conditions additional to those in the Bill is not intended to be a burden on the shoulders of the prospective farmer. In my opinion, it is simply a sound principle which is being suggested, a principle which generally accepted in the private sector. I want to put it like this: If an individual has obtained a big loan from a commercial bank, for example, in order to finance certain developments, we accept that the bank is entitled to receive a report from time to time to guarantee the loan in the eyes of the bank. It would not be inappropriate to make this applicable in the case of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure as well.

Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with clause 1. Since the legislation provides for only one of the nine members of the council to be a public servant, we should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister on what basis he intends to appoint the other eight in the future, whether they will all come from the private sector and whether they will be appointed on a provincial basis, or on what basis he intends to appoint them. We have already dealt with clause 2.

With reference to clause 4, I want to say that the Minister already has the right in terms of section 37(3), of course, to purchase land. The problem has arisen that when the first mortgagee insists on the land being alienated, the department cannot purchase the land. I think I have understood this correctly. Now the Minister is being given the right to buy that land. In this connection, there is a question I want to ask the Deputy Minister: When such a farm is bought by the department, will it be possible to make that farm available to prospective farmers in terms of the proposed section 10(2A), or does that section only relate to potential agricultural land which is not yet developed? I should like to have a reply to that.

The intention with clause 5 is clear. The Act already provides that no agricultural land may be subdivided without ministerial approval. However, I cannot quite see where this clause fits into the Act, because there is no reference to a specific section, nor does it specify under which Act this clause will fall. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain the legal position in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed by this Bill are mostly consequential ones. Like the hon. member for Wynberg, I want to concentrate mainly on clause 2, which in my opinion seeks to effect one of the most important amendments to the Agricultural Credit Act since the commencement of this Act in 1966. It is commendable in the sense that it seeks to extend the powers of the Agricultural Credit Board to render financial assistance to prospective young farmers so that they may establish themselves in the agricultural industry. However, I wish to emphasize something which the hon. member for Wynberg did not emphasize. Capital is not the only thing that matters when a man enters the agricultural industry. A man’s ability and his knowledge are also important when he seeks to enter the agricultural industry. We must make no mistake about the fact that capital is no longer the most essential factor for a person to establish himself in agriculture. Agriculture has developed in a capital-intensive direction, and this has meant greater expertise and knowledge as far as agriculture in South Africa is concerned. It is true that we train our young farmers. I am told that one of our agricultural faculties has more than 700 agricultural students this year, the vast majority of whom will join the farming industry when they have completed their courses. We are therefore going to have a large number of potential young farmers who have the knowledge and the expertise to establish themselves in the agriculture but who do not have enough capital. For this reason, the proposed legislation is a very positive step, because we shall now be able to establish these prospective young farmers in agriculture on the basis of their skill and knowledge.

From time to time, land becomes available which has not been properly developed, and this land should be made available to young farmers. This power which is now being given to the Agricultural Credit Board means that it will be possible to release capital with which projects such as camps, fencing, watering-places, etc., can be undertaken so that the farm may be made productive. At the same time, it will also promote the utilization of our agricultural resources. That is why I say it is a very important amendment.

I think this amendment also creates a better and more positive image of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. This department is regarded by the farmers as a kind of rehabilitation centre. In other words, there is a kind of stigma attached to the department. We cannot argue that away. All the sad cases that occur in agriculture are referred to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure or to the Agricultural Credit Board. This Bill provides for positive steps by the department to invest in agriculture by helping young, able prospective farmers to establish themselves in agriculture. This ought to improve the image of this department considerably.

The hon. member for Wynberg expressed certain misgivings about this clause. He said that conditions should be imposed upon a prospective farmer to the effect that he has to comply with the normal financial requirements. The hon. member may be correct, but I do not think this is the kind of thing that should be placed on the Statute Book. When one looks at the clause, one sees that the opportunity is created in the proviso for conditions to be laid down after five years in terms of which a person may be obliged to do this, if it is necessary. However, I do not think it should be laid down in law. In the amendment to clause 2, the hon. member says by implication that no rental is payable in respect of the first two years of the lease. After the second year, 2% interest will be payable. In the fifth year, 5% interest must be paid. This is an interest rate laid down by the Act. However, one may be telling the tenant by implication that one doubts whether he will be able to meet his obligations and that one therefore wants him to submit his operating results every year in the form of a statement of revenue and expenditure.

I do not think this should be laid down by law. I think one can provide for it by means of the normal lease agreements and according to the circumstances. We also understand that the inspectorate of the Agricultural Credit Board has people who go and see how the tenants are getting along from time to time. There is the necessary liaison between the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, the Department or Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to enable them all to give the necessary economic and other guidance to the tenants if they should need it.

Basically, I have no objection to the idea expressed by the hon. member; I only find it wrong to lay down such a thing by law. One could have practical and administrative problems. If a farmer who pays his instalments regularly every year neglects to submit that statement—like many farmers, he may not be a very keen bookkeeper—the department would have to write letters and send out reminders. In this way, a lot of administrative work would be created. I also want to say that even if the department did obtain all this information, a group of officials and an administration would have to be set to work again to evaluate and examine the information. Therefore one would perhaps be imposing unnecessary administrative obligations on the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure.

I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we shall obviously support this Bill. It is a Bill designed to improve a very difficult situation in agriculture, particularly that of encouraging the younger farmers to return to the land. The proposed new section 2A specifically refers to the letting of land currently in the possession of the State. The question has been raised of the depopulation of the border areas, a situation which is not only causing an agricultural problem, but also a security problem. It does occur to me that the amount of land currently in possession of the State is not nearly enough to meet the demands, in such a situation, of young people who may wish to go farming. I am beginning to wonder whether it might not be possible for the hon. the Minister, at some time or other, to extend this principle so that people who are desirous of acquiring land may be able to avail themselves of a situation like this. Obviously there are implications as far as capital sums, etc., are concerned, but I do not want to go into that now as it is not a matter which is before the House at the moment. As I see it, the provisions contained in this Bill are going to make a very restrictive amount of land available to young farmers who want to use it. I think the question asked by the hon. member for Wynberg is an interesting one. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in his reply to that question, will tell us how much land, specifically land in the border areas, is actually going to be made available. I think people have tended to see an arrangement like this as one way in which the border areas can be repopulated. There are, however, difficult areas to farm and are a long way away from the populated areas. We also have to contend with the problem that they may become a security risk in the future. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he could supply us with any kind of definite answer and whether there are any ideas in the minds of departmental officials about making land, which is not in the possession of the State, available to farmers on another basis.

I should also like to echo the problem raised in relation to clause 5. If one were looking up agricultural legislation in Butterworths, one would find a provision such as this to be completely “losstaande”. It is not going to have any relation to any other Act. I therefore wonder whether it is not possible to amend this clause so as to relate it to the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act. Therefore, when people want to look it up, they will know where to go and will not have to page through the thick Butterworth volume dealing with land.

In what section is it going to be?

That is the problem. We do not know. I do not know whether it was realized when the Bill was drafted that people who may want to find this particular provision might have a problem of identification. However, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister might be able to help us with that. We support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that hon. members of the Opposition are supporting this measure. The hon. member for Mooi River has misgivings about whether sufficient land will be available for young farmers, because basically we are concerned in this amending Bill with aid to farmers—I think aid is really the key word in this Bill— aid for the placing of farmers, but also aid for the survival of the poor farmer on the land, or for the man who has a sub-economic unit and wishes to rent a supplementary piece of land. This is also provided for.

People do not always enter the agricultural industry for the sake of money. I think it is very often because of a certain sentiment and a desire we have to be close to the soil. There is a love of agriculture, and I want to state here today that in my opinion, the State and the community as a whole actually derive great benefit from the sentiments which South Africans harbour with regard to farming and the soil. If we had farmed only for money, few farmers would have been left. We farm for the sake of sentiment. The hon. the Deputy Minister here beside me is in a very good mood—it is his birthday today, and we want to congratulate him—and has handed me a booklet printed in 1908, from which I want to read a few quotations to hon. members just to indicate the sentiments of the South African towards the agricultural industry and the soil. It is a little poem called “Die Mieliepit” and it reads as follows—

This proves to us the sentiment which agriculture aroused even in those days, causing them to write a poem in praise of the maize kernel. This little poem also has a deeper meaning. It testifies to the poverty which prevailed in agriculture in that time, and it also indicates to us that a kind of subsistence economy was practised. I read further—

This shows us how people felt about agriculture in those years. The concept of a subsistence economy is still bound among many of our people in agriculture. Unfortunately, we cannot deny that we can no longer practise a subsistence economy today. We must make it possible for a man to make an economic living on the land. If there are people outside this House—I believe all of us here agree with it—who will say that the State is making it possible for people to get land for nothing on which they can farm for two years, then I want to tell them that in agriculture, unfortunately, we cannot operate according to the ordinary economic principles. We members of the agricultural industry cannot operate according to the ordinary economic principles, I am afraid, because agriculture simply does not lend itself to that. That is why this kind of legislation is necessary. It is in the interests of the country that we should keep the people on the farms, that we should have strategic food supplies available, and many of these small farmers help to make this possible. For that reason, I believe that this is good legislation. There are a few small technical problems which we shall raise in the Committee Stage, but for the rest, this is good legislation and we gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that I appreciate the fine contributions we have had in this debate on the subject of this legislation. I also wish to convey my thanks to the Opposition parties for their support of the Bill.

There is one particular aspect of the Bill which I should like to discuss in greater detail. It is true that when one gives a person land, one must do it in such a way that he will be able to make an economic living on it Now there are certain people who are critical of this. Some people allege that those lands should be sold by public auction. My experience in this department has shown me how many promising young people there are who would like to enter the agricultural industry. They have all the necessary skills, but they may not have the required operating capital or the capital to establish themselves. Here we are now being offered an opportunity to settle such people on farms. I think it is an excellent idea.

The hon. member for Wynberg put certain questions to me, and in the first place, I want him to understand clearly that I should not like this legislation to become involved in any way with the legislation on the occupation of border areas which is to come before the House later this session. Hon. members know that the Government has appointed a committee of inquiry to investigate the occupation of border areas, or the occupation of remote areas. The committee is under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, Mr. Steyn. This committee very soon disposed of the matter, and I believe that we debated their findings under the Agriculture Vote. They made certain proposals to the Government, and the Government is now examining these proposals. Legislation is already being prepared and we hope that it will come before the House before the end of the session. I do not want us to anticipate the matter. I should prefer us to debate it when that legislation is before the House. I can assure hon. members that the proposals are extremely positive. In the light of the many positive proposals which the report contains, I believe that this specific committee deserves the thanks of everyone in this country for the able way in which they dealt with the matter.

The hon. member for Wynberg also asked me how many units would be made available. Unfortunately, not much State land in this category is available for allocation. However, land is made available for this purpose from time to time. A piece of land may be bought for a dam, for example, but it may actually be much bigger than the land required for the building of the dam, for the high-water mark and for the reserve area. When this happens, land becomes available. It is consolidated into economic units and then allocated. Of course, this also happens where irrigation schemes are established, as in the case of the Rama canal. I may say more about this later. Therefore I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member any indication of the number of units that will be made available in the course of this year.

Then the hon. member asked me how and when it would be advertised. As soon as the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has finality about the land, they consult every Government department—this is a prescribed procedure—to see whether any Government department is interested in it. If no department is interested, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure decides that the land is available for allocation. It is then advertised in the Government Gazette, agricultural magazines and newspapers circulating in that area. Therefore it will be fairly widely known that land is being advertised.

As far as further financial aid is concerned, every case is dealt with on merit, depending on the requirements of every unit. If it is an irrigation unit, the person concerned is bound to need a sprinkler system as well. For the sake of interest, I may mention that a year or more ago, the board made eight stands available at the P. K. le Roux Dam. I was privileged to go and look at them at the beginning of the year. In the latest edition of the Farmer’s Weekly, an article was published about them. It was an eye-opener to me to see what had been achieved with absolutely virgin soil, how the eight approved young men had developed that land and the success they had achieved. A need arose for irrigation sets. Because of the unevenness of the ground, it would have been very expensive to even the land for flood irrigation. In any event, it is better to irrigate that land by means of a sprinkler system. In all the cases, the board then agreed to make loans available to these people so that they could acquire sprinkler sets. They all did so. Some sets are very big. The point of view of the board was that for the man to be productive, he had to have a proper system so that he could produce as soon and as rapidly as possible. Therefore, further financial aid is provided according to merit and need. I think this answers the hon. member’s question in that connection. Again, the average amount of aid is determined by need and merit.

A further question which the hon. member asked was on what basis members were appointed to the board. The Agricultural Credit Act provides that the chairman or vice-chairman of the board has to be an official. The Act further provides that persons are considered for appointment on the basis of their knowledge of agricultural economics, agricultural techniques, etc. Now the policy is—I think it is a good one—that when a vacancy arises, the board decides with whom they want to fill it. Should it be an expert on field husbandry, or someone who is knowledgeable about extensive livestock areas, or a man from an area about which little is known? Once again, the appointment is determined by what the board needs.

I may also tell the hon. member that provincial boundaries do not apply at all in this respect. This is mainly done according to merit and need.

There is another question regarding clause 5. I am not a legal expert myself, but my legal expert is here, and he writes to me as follows—

I repeat that I am not a lawyer. Therefore I only give the advice supplied to me by my legal adviser. I accept that this is correct. In fact, the Bill has also been checked by the officials of Parliament and I believe that they found the clause to be in order.

I also want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Bethal and the hon. member for Malmesbury for their contributions, contributions which proved to me once again the extensive knowledge of agriculture in South Africa which these hon. members have. In particular, I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the hon. members with regard to agriculture. I thank them for their support of the Bill, and also for the contributions they made to the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

From time to time the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure receives representations from people who claim ownership to land for which they have no title deeds, owing to past failure on the part of heirs and other people who were entitled thereto, to obtain transfer of ownership of immovable property. Accordingly, the representations are to the effect that should the authorities take steps to provide the interested parties with title deeds in respect of their rights.

In the past, every such case was dealt with on an ad hoc basis and where the State considered such a step justified, it acted by creating machinery by legislation to bring such a matter to a satisfactory conclusion. In the cases dealt with in this way up to now, this was done after it had become clear that owing to circumstances, the normal procedure of applying to a court to arrange the matter, did not afford a practical solution because it was not found possible to obtain the cooperation of all the interested parties. In the cases where the State acted there was, in fact, not even clarity or conclusive proof of who had claims.

In those cases where the State acted, this took place on an ad hoc basis, as already indicated, and in every case a separate hybrid Bill was piloted through Parliament. The pattern, apart from the use of the procedure of hybrid legislation, amounted in every case to the establishment of a body with authority to obtain evidence in accordance with a procedure laid down in the Act, whereby the identity of interested parties and the nature and extent of their interest in the property, could be ascertained, and so as to allocate the interest of such interested parties to them.

More and more cases are occurring where the State is requested, to assist groups of people in the manner described, cases where action by the State is indeed both desirable and justified. To mention only the most important aspects of the unsatisfactory position that normally exists: Where owners have any claim to ownership in a specific locality, in the absence of title deeds, they are unable to obtain any credit for development of their properties by using the property in question as security. The result is neglect and decay of the property, and needless poverty among many of the interested parties. The worst of it is that with the passage of time, as interested parties die and further heirs without title deeds come forward, the position is aggravated and it becomes more and more difficult to put in order.

It is a needlessly tiresome and expensive process to introduce separate legislation in every case, and what we have before us now is a general measure in terms of which it is hoped future cases can be handled. I probably need not explain in great detail, but hon. members will note from the text of the Bill that in the procedures prescribed we are going to great lengths to ensure that the interests of claimants are thoroughly investigated and then adjudicated upon.

†In the first place provision has been made for the publication, in the Gazette and in a newspaper circulating in the area, of notices drawing attention to the proposed designation of a property in terms of the Act If objections to such a designation are received, the matter will be referred to a Select Committee for consideration, and further steps will only be taken after the approval, by resolution, of both Houses of Parliament has been granted for such designation.

The Bill provides for the establishment of land division committees consisting of three members with the power to determine which persons are entitled to be registered as the owners of the land in question. The first task of a land division committee will be to determine who the lawful owners of the property are. To this end a land division committee must publish a notice in the Gazette and in a local newspaper requesting persons, who claim to have a right in the land concerned, to submit their applications within a period of two months from the date of publication. The interests of persons who are subject to some form of legal disability must also be borne in mind, even though such persons do not apply according to the provisions.

Ample provision has been made for the recording of objections to any allocation made by the committee, and an applicant can also ask a committee to reconsider a specific allocation if he is not satisfied with the findings of that committee. Special provision has been made for the submission and hearing of evidence. The final ruling of a committee will, however, be conclusive and for the purposes of transfer to the lawful owners, the committee will be regarded as being the owner.

All expenses a committee incurs in connection with the allocation and transfer of land, will be paid from funds voted by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, but in fact on a recoverable basis. In other words, each claimant will have to pay his rightful share of the costs incurred to the said department for payment into the State Revenue Fund. Transfer will not take place before the costs have been paid or satisfactory arrangements for their payment have been made.

*In conclusion, I might just mention again that the main object of the legislation is to establish measures whereby a body can be instituted in the particular circumstances to which I initially referred, to institute investigations into, and to adjudicate upon, the claims of persons to be registered as owners of land and to give transfer to the rightful claimants.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to state that we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill.

This is a highly technical Bill with far-reaching consequences. Probably all of us in this House are aware of cases where problems have arisen as a result of uncertainty about farms or pieces of land to which, owing to circumstances, more than one person has laid a claim. It happens so often that when various persons claim ownership to land, it can lead to court cases which can sometimes be appallingly expensive. Often the costs are so high that individuals are never able to obtain a registered deed of title to their land. Then the problem is simply put off indefinitely. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, that leads to the deterioration of the farm or the piece of land. The owners who ought really to co-operate, are less and less interested and the economic unit then falls into decay. This legislation provides for the appointment of a land division committee, and this will obviate the high costs of court cases.

As I have stated, this is a highly technical Bill. Personally I do not feel equal to participating in the discussions in all the stages, and hereafter one of my colleagues will participate in further discussions.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Wynberg for the support he has given to the legislation before the House on behalf of his party.

The principle embodied in this Bill has previously been accepted by this House when ad hoc legislation was passed to make provision for the cases in the George and Oudtshoorn divisions. That ad hoc legislation yielded such good results in those specific cases that the Bill now before the House is umbrella legislation to cover all cases of that nature. In terms of this Bill, ad hoc committees can be appointed, with a lawyer as chairman, to deal with every specific case.

What does this legislation envisage? This legislation is aimed at enabling a person (a) to obtain transfer of land to which he has a lawful right but which, for some practical reason, he is unable to obtain title to, or (b) to be compensated for his share in that land. What are the practical considerations I have referred to? Clause 2 deals with these. In the first place, there are cases where heirs or other persons preceding them have failed to take transfer of land and future acquisition of rights by inheritance, for example, will cause the situation to become progressively worse and more complicated or cases where the cost of obtaining transfer in the usual manner would be out of proportion to the value of the interest in the land.

One might ask oneself how such a situation arises. I think intestate succession is a major cause of this problem and sometimes the beneficiary does not even know that he or she has acquired a benefit in terms of intestate succession. In the second place, even testate succession could lead to the same problem where the testator has nominated too many joint heirs to the land in question.

In a practical example I have in mind, a father bequeaths his three farms to his eight sons. In our law, each of them obtains a one-eighth undivided share in each of those three farms, which are not necessarily of equal size. For practical reasons, the sons decide that the first three should obtain their calculated share in all three of the farms, in farm A only. The next three sons obtain their calculated share of the land in farm B only, and the remaining two sons obtain theirs from farm C. This is an agreement, but it is never confirmed by subdivision of that land or by a deed of partition. After generations have come and gone, and after many bequests and further sales, an interested party now sits with a title deed which is altogether irreconcilable with what he alleges he specifically possesses. The committee that the Minister would now appoint in terms of clause 3 would deal with these complicated matters. They would investigate claims to ownership, hear representations and reach an equitable decision regarding the division or allocation of the land, be it subdivided or undivided. For all practical purposes the committee virtually becomes the owner of that specific land. The committee could handle the matter in one of two ways: Either it could pass transfer directly to all interested parties without regard to the provisions of the Deeds Registries Act, which provides that transfers should follow the sequence of all preceding transfers; or if it finds that the separate interests are too numerous and that a transfer would accordingly not be worthwhile, it may sell the land and allocate the proceeds proportionally.

A very important provision is contained in clause 10(7), namely that the decision of this committee in terms of subsection (1) shall be conclusive and final. This is a good thing— and in this regard I endorse the comments of the hon. member for Wynberg—because if these transactions were subject to protracted court proceedings, this would in point of fact have frustrated the object of this Bill. In any event, such court cases would for the most part be vexatious, since the Bill before the House deals pre-eminently with small transactions of which the separate values are relatively small.

What has to be guarded against? It has to be seen to that people are not deprived of their lawful rights. This is scrupulously guarded against. In the first place, the hon. the Minister’s mere intention to deal with a specific piece of land, is advertised in the local Press and in the Gazette. All the known owners are also advised by registered letter.

In exactly the same way, interested parties are invited by means of the Press, the Gazette and by registered letter to apply for allocation or transfer. Thereafter, in terms of clause 8, it is again advertised in the Press and in the Government Gazette that the particular applications lie for inspection. Finally, after the committee has reached a decision, it advises every applicant of its decision by registered letter. Every applicant can then once again lodge an objection to that decision if he does not agree with the finding. Special provision is also made for a person who is under some form of legal disability so that his claim is not frustrated either.

There are virtually thousands of cases of ownership in South Africa that stand no chance of ever being confirmed in law unless legislation such as this is placed on the Statute Book. This Bill is necessary. It has been well drafted. It supplies a very important deficiency and for that reason I wish to support it.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. the Deputy Minister, I am not a “wetsman”. As far as the proposed legislation is concerned, I want to say that there is a very difficult problem which will have to be solved. If a couple of farmers have been given a problem to solve, this is the sort of Bill they would have worked out, because it is immensely practical, it looks at the problem as it really is and it offers an ad hoc solution in the sense that “’n boer maak ’n plan”. I think this is the sort of thing that is necessary in a situation like this, because there are so many different aspects to this particular problem.

I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this is going to help in finding a solution to a problem that we have in Natal, namely that of clearing up Black spots where precisely this sort of problem arises. Even where a local farmer, or local farmers who get together, make an offer to the Black owners of a farm, a farm to which they have legal title and which they therefore legally possess, there is still the difficulty of tracing all the people who have a right to it. Therefore the difficulties in getting a transfer are almost insuperable. If this legislation also applies to that sort of situation then I think it is going to do a great deal to solve our own particular problem in Natal. Therefore I support the legislation and welcome it very much indeed.

The point about being able to take a local decision is in my opinion so important. In other words there is no great issue over the whole country, but a committee can be appointed to deal with the specific problem. Every single problem has its particular difficulty and its own particular matters that have to be resolved. We support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that there is general accord this afternoon on the passing of this legislation. Consequently we on this side of the House support the legislation with great enthusiasm.

It is with a certain measure of mixed feelings that I am participating in the discussion of this legislation, because I grappled with this type of problem in practice for 26 years and often reached a deadlock with my clients because we were unable to overcome those insuperable problems. It is therefore a great pleasure to be able to participate in this debate and to realize that legislation is being introduced whereby many people in our country can be afforded relief in regard to these snags and problems.

Looking at the provisions of the Bill and what they envisage, I think one can state that we are today adding another chapter to our land registration system. I think we should test this legislation against two cardinal principles of our registration system. The first is the security and the unassailability of title afforded by our registration system. The second cardinal principle is contained in the textbook written by Mr. J. W. S. Heyl, Grondregistrasie in Suid-Afrika, where he elucidates this as follows—

If we consider the extraordinarily careful procedure followed by the hon. the Minister and by the land division committee, and if we consider the provisions of clauses 2, 3, 7 and 8 in particular, in terms of which in every step taken, it is ensured that no person who may have an interest in the land concerned will suffer prejudice, we realize what extreme care is being taken to ensure security and unassailability of title.

Our country has a proud registration system and we are very jealous of it. We as the law-givers should therefore make absolutely sure that we keep it that way.

If we consider the second cardinal principle of our land registration system, we note that the Bill before the House specifically seeks to ensure that there should not simultaneously be registered and unregistered owners of property. For years, the latter phenomenon has done our country a great deal of harm, because it is a fact that there are probably hundreds of cases throughout our country where thousands of so-called landowners find themselves on farms to which they have no registered right, whereas there are thousands of other owners who find themselves in a position where their registered rights are not really worth much, owing to the uncertain unregistered title of their co-owners. By passing this legislation we are, in my view, doing the following: We are meeting a very urgent, essential and serious need on the part of thousands of land-owners in our country …

Hear, hear!

… by introducing this procedure whereby they can obtain secure title.

In the second place, by means of this legislation we are creating a procedure that will deliver many people from absolutely untenable situations. In the third place, we are going to save many thousands of rands for people who are less and less able to afford this. In the fourth place, we are taking a step for which the Master of the Supreme Court in everyone of our provinces will be for ever grateful to us. After all, there are literally thousands of unfinalized estates in the offices of Masters of the Supreme Court on account of the fact that the registrations in the names of the rightful owners cannot be proceeded with. In their efforts to have the land registered in their names, thousands of people have in the past had to report estate after estate to obtain the land from an estate going back three or four generations. In this way one could continue to detail the extra work this entails for the Masters of the Supreme Court. This procedure is now going to obviate that work. The task of the Registrar of Deeds is also being facilitated by this legislation. How many thousands of man-hours have the Deeds Offices throughout our country not had to waste in checking thousands of deeds, documents or court orders, often finding that somewhere along the line a mistake has slipped in so that registration is not possible?

This legislation really becomes an answer to the prayers of many conveyancers who often, after a great deal of trouble, have to tell their clients that they cannot make any further progress because there are still certain estates that first have to be finalized and because they are unable to trace certain sellers. This often happens because such a seller vanishes after he has received his money. They often have to tell their clients that obtaining a court order would cost them a great deal of money, and apart from that, all the transfer duties have to be paid on the intermediate transactions.

This is therefore a much appreciated step and we on this side of the House are grateful to the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department that introduced this legislation, for file great favour they are doing our country. We on this side of the House support the Bill with enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg has already indicated that we support the Second Reading of this Bill because we support the principle that there are certain circumstances where heirs to land are not able to receive their title.

The situation has become very complicated over the years and it is likely to become more complicated. This is especially the case, as the hon. member for Marico has indicated, when the estates are delayed at the Master’s office because transfers cannot be passed. This means that the estates cannot be wound up. The remedy at that stage is then to make application to the Supreme Court, but that is costly and it usually involves a rule nisi. One has to serve notice upon all the heirs and advertise in various newspapers in areas where the heirs are likely to be. The costs and the delay involved are really quite considerable.

The hon. member for Namaqualand mentioned an example, but I am not quite sure whether I appreciate the point of his example. If I understood him correctly, he said that, if a farmer with eight sons left them three farms in equal undivided shares, they may have agreed between them that three of them would take one farm, another three the second farm and the remaining two the third farm. He said further that they could then enter into a redistribution agreement, which would be filed with the liquidation and distribution account of the Master and that, should it be approved, which it would be, transfer could be passed readily without any problem whatsoever. I see no difficulty in that at all. Those of us who are fortunate enough to serve on the commission set up in terms of the Deeds Act, went to inspect the deeds registry office of the Cape Province and found that with regard to certain farms dating back some 300 years all the heirs and relations connected with them could be traced. One can understand, therefore, that a problem can go back many years and that it could be more expensive to solve that problem by going to court than the land itself is actually worth. Therefore we welcome the whole principle of having some form of machinery which will make the process cheaper and quicker.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred to the Blacks. I am not sure whether the hon. the Minister in this legislation provides for the position with regard to the Blacks when it comes to the division of farm land. I am not so sure that that is not covered under other laws. In fact, I am of the opinion at the moment that this is not involved here. In the case of the Blacks there can be very complicated estates in that a chief may for instance have four wives. One then has to determine which wife is the lawful one for the purpose of inheritance and which wife’s children will be able to inherit I do not think we need go into that because I do not think this sort of committee is going to resolve that I can say that I have been involved in Supreme Court litigation in Natal over matters of that nature.

However, I want to get back to the Bill we are discussing. Whilst we agree with the principles, we are not entirely convinced that the method to be applied in terms of this Bill is the best, the quickest or even the cheapest method. The Bill really provides for four steps to be taken. The first step involves the actual designated land as such. It is for the hon. the Minister to decide which is the designated land. The hon. the Minister then appoints a land division committee. I shall deal with the appointment of that committee in a moment. As the third step, that committee then follows a certain procedure and exercises certain functions. Fourthly, the committee having carried out its function and having reached a final decision, that decision is to be implemented.

Firstly, I want to deal with the designation of the land as such. At the outset, it is not clear who initiates the request to the hon. the Minister that an area of land be designated. It is not indicated in the Bill whether an applicant is responsible for that or how it is drawn to the hon. the Minister’s attention in the first place. That is the first thing that is not quite clear. Having received the application, the hon. the Minister has to decide whether to designate the land, after which he must advertise. He does so very fairly—there is no objection to the manner in which he advertises in the Gazette and the newspapers. This provides people with ample opportunity to decide whether they object to the designation or not.

However, we now have a peculiar situation arising. Having advertised in the Gazette and elsewhere the intention to designate a particular piece of land, the Minister can proceed to do so provided no objections are lodged. That is the one possibility. The next possibility is one where there has been an objection. If the hon. the Minister deems it inadvisable, because of objections lodged, he is entitled to refrain entirely from designating the land in question. This is, of course, a very important decision that the Minister has to take, a decision based only on his own judgment in terms of an objection raised. We must also remember that at that specific stage there has also been no hearing of the case in question, and no representations have been made. Nevertheless, the decision taken by the hon. the Minister is final because the other provisions contained in this legislation are not applicable. That means that if the Minister decides, in terms of this clause, that there will not be a designation, that is it. That is the end of the matter. No court procedure takes place at all. Where then is the machinery which can be used to make representations to the Minister, to get the ball rolling and to get the land properly designated, if the Minister has already taken a final decision based on a mere objection? This is the first area of concern which I want to point out.

Now I come to the second area of concern. Let us assume that the Minister goes ahead and designates the land in question. He now goes ahead and appoints a land division committee. Clause 4 provides for the appointment to such a committee of a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa or a magistrate with at least ten years’ experience as a magistrate or any person who has held office as such a judge or such a magistrate. We do not object to this provision at all. However, I think we should go a little further once the establishment of a land division committee has been effected. I notice that the committee is to consist of three members appointed by the Minister. That means that, besides the judge or the magistrate, two other members will be appointed. Now, it is my contention that the other two members of the committee should be people with a peculiar knowledge of the problem on which they have to decide. They should be people with a knowledge of deeds registries, of wills and estates and other matters of this nature. In other words, they should have a practical legal knowledge which is required to settle such a problem. They should also be able to give guidance to the judge or magistrate in order to enable him to come to a fair and proper decision. I would go even further and suggest to the hon. the Minister that one of the two remaining members of such a committee should be someone with a peculiar knowledge of land surveying and the partitioning of land; that means a qualified land surveyor or quantity surveyor, for instance. What I am saying now is only meant to serve as a guideline. However, seeing that the aim is the appointment of a committee of three members, let us then have legislation of the best possible kind in order to meet the situation at which it is aimed.

Clause 4(2) reads as follows—

I should hope that one of the two members necessary to constitute a quorum of the committee will be either the judge or the magistrate; that in other words a quorum should consist of either the judge or the magistrate as chairman, and one other member of the committee. I do not believe that a quorum of two members, if one of them is not the chairman, should be allowed to make decisions in very important matters such as these.

We have no objection against the provisions dealing with surveys, with allocations and with the signing of documents. We also have no objection against the provision dealing with the Secretary’s ability to pay out funds and to recover certain moneys.

I now want to deal with another aspect. That is the one of the committee, having taken a preliminary decision, causes to be published in the Government Gazette or in a newspaper a notice to the effect that any person who considers himself to have a just claim to the land in question should acquire a plan of that land and submit to the committee, within a period of two months, the relevant particulars on which that person claims the right of the land being allocated to him or why he should receive a share thereof, if the land in question happens to be indivisible. Such claims and facts relevant thereto have to be set out in a sworn affidavit and as soon as such an affidavit has been filed a claimant, should he be legally disabled, can obtain legal representation. We also have no objection to this provision.

As stated in clause 8, after the expiration of the period referred to, the committee then publishes—again in the Gazette—a notice—

and calls upon persons who wish to object to do so. Then, having done that—and this brings me to clause 9—the committee may conduct such investigation in connection with any application and, at its discretion, refuse to hear any oral evidence. At this stage therefore the committee has received the applications, submissions and objections made to it. It is not clear from the Bill, however, whether, at this stage, one is dealing with a hearing or whether it is purely—as the Bill states—an investigation that is being carried out by the committee. If it is an investigation, there is no room for oral evidence to be made to the committee. On the other hand, it is stated that the committee can, at its discretion, refuse to hear any oral evidence. On the one hand, therefore, the committee is conducting an investigation whilst, on the other hand, it is stated that the committee can refuse to hear oral evidence. It is therefore not clear whether one is dealing with a hearing at this stage of the proceedings or whether the committee is merely conducting an investigation to enable it to reach a decision on the matter. Since the committee is not a court of law, being only a creature of statute which is being created, if a hearing is being conducted I think one would need a clause enabling legal representations to be made on behalf of any of the applicants or any of the objectors. That is a matter about which one would certainly welcome clarification from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Perhaps he could tell us whether representations can, in fact, be made.

The next step in the proceedings takes us to clause 10. After the aforementioned steps in the process, the committee considers each application and then makes—

In the light of the finding that is to be made, it is that much more dangerous if there has been no hearing and if no representations have been made up to that stage. In terms of the finding the committee makes, it then has to advise the applicant If the applicant is subsequently not satisfied with the finding, he can, within 30 days, ask the committee to reconsider the matter, but the committee can refuse the request to reconsider the matter. Even at this stage there is no room for representations. If the committee does not refuse the request, a hearing is convened. That hearing is then held, and in terms of the hearing the committee can either set aside, alter or vary the previous decision it made at a stage when there was probably no hearing. That is another difficulty that I have. Again I must ask whether there will be any representations because at this stage they are given the opportunity of inspecting the documents and the evidence. In the light of this, I imagine that it would be possible to have representations, but there is nothing to indicate clearly that this is so.

Now I come to what subsequently takes place at the meeting, and I quote—

It is only the person who is not present who can have a representative. That is the only time that a representative is referred to. The committee may, however, at its discretion, refuse to hear any such evidence unless it is given under oath. Well, we shall not quarrel with that because I think that at that stage of the proceedings submissions should be made under oath. Further evidence can be presented, and representations can be made, to the committee which can alter, set aside or substitute the finding it has made. If the committee has confirmed or altered its finding, it advises the applicant accordingly. It is stated in clause 10(7) that—

This therefore brings one to the final decision. I have outlined the steps in detail because I now want to ask whether this long procedure, which I have outlined, is the quickest and best. The hon. member for Mooi River was very happy at this having been the decision of the farmers. With great respect, I do think it was perhaps a farmers’ decision. I do not think the quickest method of dealing with the situation has been found. Let me put it very simply. If application is made to the Minister to have land designated because there is dispute with regard to title deeds and ownership, the Minister considers the application and may then set up a land division committee. The land division committee then calls for applications or objections and, at one hearing at which legal representations are made, comes to a decision. If anyone feels aggrieved at that decision, it should be provided that he may, within a period of, say, 30 days, appeal to a body which can be constituted and whose decision will then be final. That is surely a far quicker and far better method of dealing with this kind of situation which has given rise to all these problems. I wonder if we have really with the present long rigmarole met the situation of giving adequate representation and an adequate hearing to all the people concerned.

You would have made a fine mess at Oudtshoorn that way. You would have infuriated all the farmers.

I want to deal with a further problem. Having reached a final decision, this committee now has to implement the decision. In order to implement the decision, it then makes the allocation—and we have no quarrel with the allocations or the partition that is decided upon. I take it that, if a partition agreement is entered into, it will override other laws, particularly as the Bill provides that a claim dated on or after 1 January 1971 shall be subject to the consent of the Minister. I take it that this is done with a view to the Act of 1970 which provides that land cannot be subdivided without the Minister’s consent. I presume one is dealing at the same time with the Minister’s consent to a partition agreement, because obviously another land survey has been made for the partitioning and one now has to divide the land which cannot be done without the Minister’s consent, and that only after that can the agreement be implemented. Having done that, the committee can then also—apart from the partition agreement—go on to transfer the undivided land or apply for this in court. Clause 11(5) does not make it clear whether the Deeds Office is directed to transfer it or not. It is obviously not the case, because the committee does not have the power to do it. The committee can authorize the transfer of the title to the Deeds Office, but then documents must be handed in to the Deeds Registry to enable the Deeds Registrar to effect the transfer in terms of the final findings of the land committee. That is not made clear in clause 11(5); I think the committee can only give directions to the Deeds Registry to enable transfer to be effected in this particular way.

You are conjuring up spectres.

I now come to the question of whether land is burdened. Land can be burdened under a registered mortgage bond, or a fideicommissum, a usufruct or other circumstances. Firstly, with regard to the usufruct, I want to know whether the rights and duties of the usufructuary are taken into consideration if there is a partition or subdivision of the land, because even in a subdivision or partition of the land, the rights of the usufructuary, the fideicommissimary or the fiduciary heir who is inheriting, may be prejudiced.

I am not clear on what the position with regard to a mortgage bond would be. One cannot take a piece of land which is subject to a mortgage bond hypothecation, and simply partition it without the rights of the mortgage bond holder being affected. Hon. members will know—some of them from practical expense—that one requires the written consent of the bond holder to partition or divide the land so that he can see whether his rights under such mortgage bond are affected in any way. The Bill merely says the mortgage bonds will not be affected, but with great respect, I think the interests of the mortgage bond holders should be protected. I would imagine that building societies would be consulted in this matter. I think their interests should be protected because, even though the land committee could make a decision, can it override the mortgage bond registered over the property and can it enforce it without the consent of the mortgage bond holder who has the right to grant his consent or to withhold it? If the applicant fails to pay the amount, the committee can sell the property. As far as the sale of the property is concerned, I can only ask again whether the rights of the usufructuary and the rights of the fideicommissary will be taken into account when those rights are sold. Although the Bill later on stipulates that the funds must be paid to the master after all expenses have been deducted, I am not sure whether a usufructuary will receive the same return on the usufruct on a farm as the return he would receive from the money invested with the master at the current interest rate of about 7%. For these reasons these difficulties arise. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we three farmers— the hon. member for Wynberg, the hon. member for Mooi River and myself—listened very carefully to all our learned friends who took part in this debate.

And you are no wiser.

I agree with the hon. member for Mooi River that this Bill is a good one, judging especially from the speeches made by the hon. member for Namakwaland and the hon. member for Marico.

With all due respect to my other learned friend, the hon. member for Hillbrow, I want to say that he has come up with so many technicalities that I have no desire whatsoever to reply to him now. I am in no position to do it now. [Interjections.] I admit that I am in no position to do it. However, what I can tell him is that in 1972 and 1973 two Acts were passed by Parliament, Acts which deal with similar circumstances in George and in Oudtshoorn.

Schoemanshoek.

Yes, in Schoemanshoek. I apologize to the hon. the Minister. The Bill before us is based on the legislation that was before the House in 1972 and 1973. I can tell the hon. member that we have had no problems whatsoever in handling both those cases although they were very involved. With all due respect, I cannot reply to him. However, I think it will be better if we discuss all the matters he has raised in the Committee Stage of this Bill.

*It will suffice to say that this Bill is based on legislation that has already been tried out and that has worked. For that reason I agree with the hon. member for Mooi River when he states that it seems a good Bill to him. With regard to his question on the clearing of the so-called Black spots, I can only say that as far as I know this matter falls under the Bantu Trust and Land Act and that there is adequate machinery in terms of that Act to deal with cases of that nature. However, I shall again give attention to the matter. Perhaps we can deal with that again in the Committee Stage or in the Third Reading debate.

[Inaudible.]

I undertake to go into the matter and then we can again deal with that in the Committee Stage.

I should like to thank all the parties for their support for this Bill, and in particular I wish to thank my two colleagues on this side of the House for their fine contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

A problem is being experienced with the application of section 10(l)(b) of the Forest Act, 1968 (Act 72 of 1968), one which can be solved only by amending the section concerned to the extent indicated in the Bill now before this House.

†Hon. members are aware of the fact that section 10(1) of the Forest Act, 1968, was amended by the Forest Amendment Act, 1978 (Act 87 of 1978), to empower the Minister to determine prices for timber in the round according to the basis laid down after consultation with the statutory Forestry Council. It was by no means intended with this legal provision that I shall arbitrarily dictate prices for timber in the round if it is at all possible for growers and purchasers of timber to reach agreement in this regard without my intervention. On the contrary, the intention was to prescribe by notice in the Government Gazette the procedure to be followed in negotiating the prices of such categories of timber in the round as may be causing dissatisfaction and that, thereafter, I should only intervene in those cases where the negotiations, carried out in the prescribed manner, should break down.

*Now it appears, however, from a legal opinion which was obtained, that the word “basis” implies a real formula for determining the price of timber in the round. Apart from the fact that over the years it has proved impossible in practice to lay down such a formula, it was by no means the intention, as I have said before, that a formula should be laid down, but merely the procedure which should precede the determining of a price by the Minister.

It is important that the necessary machinery for the statutory determination of prices for timber in the round, be created as soon as is practicable; and in order to overcome the problem which is being experienced in this regard at present, a further amendment of section 10 of the Forest Act, 1968, is unavoidable. It will be clear to hon. members, however, that the principles contained in the section concerned, are not affected by the proposed amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister says, this Bill amends a section in the Forest Act of 1968, a section which was brought into the Act last year after considerable debate. At the time we voted against this clause which allowed the Minister to determine prices for timber in the round and, as the hon. the Minister quite rightly said at the time, it was not his intention to dictate round-wood prices to the industry, but merely to prescribe the procedures to be followed in negotiations between growers and buyers. He said, and I quote from last year’s Hansard (23 May 1978, col. 7631)—

It might be interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister now, a year later, how he feels this has worked in practice.

We voted against this clause because we believed that the sort of interference in the free marketing of timber which was envisaged would in fact damage the industry. We did not believe that the hon. the Minister should have the right to interfere with the prices because it was an interference in the free market system in which our party believes. We still disagree with this provision in principle and believe that it should not be in the Act at all. Now, however, the hon. the Minister has come to the House with an amendment Having studied the amendment very carefully, and having consulted the various interested parties in the industry, I have come to the conclusion that it does contain a marginal improvement and I stress the word “marginal”. The feeling of the people in the industry to whom I spoke was that there was a slight improvement as far as they were concerned in that there is clarification of the whole situation pertaining to the steps to be taken in the price-fixing process. I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s point about the word “grondslag”.

Regrettably, clause 1(b) provides that—

My first question to the hon. the Minister is: How is he going to police this provision? We were told last year that the minimum of administrative machinery would be needed to put the provision into practice. I do not believe that it is going to be a very easy provision to enforce, because I do not believe it will be at all easy to enforce a fixed price, particularly when one thinks of the tremendous variations in quality, for example.

The timber industry is experiencing a surplus of round wood. If the hon. the Minister is therefore going to fix prices, he will be doing exactly as the hon. the Minister of Agriculture did with butter, because as soon as he had a surplus, he raised the price. I can only hope that the hon. the Minister does not have this sort of situation in mind. I hope—and there have been rumours going around the industry—that within the next two years or three years we are going to have a further expansion of the pulp-wood industry at Richards Bay. If this is so, I think that that surplus of timber might well disappear and that we might find ourselves in a totally different situation. I hope the hon. the Minister would then feel himself free to allow free market influences to come back into play. He could leave it to the buyers and sellers to work out their own price procedures without this Act hanging over their heads. I think that determining a price like this, and saying that nobody may sell timber at a price lower than the fixed price—which is the principle contained in clause 1(b)—holds certain dangers.

The first danger that one has to consider, is that a lot of processors have their own plantations. Last year we discussed the problem of making those processors use other people’s timber as well as their own. The danger exists that processors might not want to deal with other growers, except in times of extreme necessity. They may say that they will certainly use nothing but their own timber in the first instance. I think that that danger is going to be more real in view of the amendment the hon. the Minister is bringing before the House.

That is the situation now.

Yes. That situation exists now, but I think the hon. the Minister is possible making it worse. It is interesting, however, to hear that interjection from the hon. the Minister, because I told him last year that that is what would happen, but he said it would never happen. The hon. the Minister’s reaction is therefore very interesting. All in all we do not like the original clause, and we feel that the Bill brings about a marginal amendment, but as it is an improvement, we shall vote for the Bill on that basis.

Mr. Speaker, the PFP shows a slight improvement in that the hon. member for Orange Grove supports this legislation. I think it is because of the fact that he has consulted his voters and the forestry industry as a whole. The fact that the producers have, as it were, requested the Forestry Council to have the clause rectified so as to make it possible to apply the legislation, is illuminating enough to my mind.

The principle of this legislation was approved last year after the Select Committee had made a very thorough study of the matter. The idea is, of course, as the hon. the Minister said, to intervene only in the event of a deadlock being reached in the negotiations. The legislation was passed and the principle was laid down, but now the Forestry Council and the legal advisers have found that it is not possible to apply the legislation as it stands. For that reason it was found necessary to change the word “basis” in order to satisfy the legal draftsmen. I may tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that the proposed paragraph (b) was also deemed necessary by the legal draftsmen for the application of the Act. We shall remember that the members of the Select Committee who were charged with this task, had before them at the time the Malherbe Report in which the opinion was expressed that this procedure should be applied once every year. From the evidence it became obvious, however, that there still was a difference of opinion on this point. That is also the reason for the inability of the Forestry Council to make a pronouncement in this regard. They held several meetings and then came to a conclusion. They also convinced the producers’ organization, Satga, that it was unnecessary to do it every year, but that it should only be done whenever it became necessary.

Therefore, the Forestry Council made a very thorough study of this matter and decided that it was necessary to draw up regulations on a basis of “the procedure being applied only when the Secretary for Forestry is satisfied that a dispute has arisen in respect of which the parties involved are unable to come to an agreement”.

I think this amendment is necessary, and I should consequently like to support it. I hope the fact that this legislation is to be placed on the Statute Book, will not mean that the forestry industry is going to argue about prices continually. I think its effect will be that representatives of the forestry industry will be able to come to an agreement far more readily. The mere threat contained in the legislation ought to be enough to influence them to come to an agreement.

I want to express a further thought and that is that the Bill will also have the effect of enabling the producers, where differences of opinion still exist and where there is more than one organization, to settle their disputes and of forming a united front. Then they will be in a far stronger position when they negotiate the sale of their products.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill. I must confess that I do not see any marginal improvement or anything of that nature in the Bill, as the hon. member for Orange Grove sees it I think this is simply making it possible for the hon. the Minister to lay down the conditions, as envisaged in the provision that was passed last year. There has been some difficulty in carrying it out. The South African Timber Growers’ Association had been instrumental throughout in asking the hon. the Minister to pass the Act which was passed last year so that negotiations could take place on a real basis, with a sanction behind it should negotiations fail. They are happy with the Bill as it is now before the House.

I think the question of a minimum price is something which does not concern me, because it is something that is reached by agreement. I think it is the point of the whole story. Where negotiations have taken place and a price is agreed upon, that will be the minimum price. I think it is not necessary to have a large Police Force to go about enforcing the legislation, or anything of that nature.

Most of these negotiations are undertaken by the S.A. Timber Growers’ Association on behalf of their members. Any breach of an agreement of that nature will quite obviously be reported to the association. Therefore I do not think it is going to involve the hon. the Minister or a Police Force. I think this is an eminently suitable price of legislation and we support it.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments accepted by this House last year, were aimed at introducing greater stability in the forestry industry. As other hon. members have said, they empowered the hon. the Minister to specify the price of timber on the market in certain circumstances. One should bear the fact in mind that the primary timber producer in South Africa does not have a marketing system in terms of the Marketing Act He has to negotiate with buyers of his product through his producers’ organizations or on his own, in his private capacity. These price negotiations with individual buyers of timber products—paper-mill owners, the sawmill owners, mining companies, etc., has over the years become one of the biggest bottlenecks in the private sector of the forestry industry. Section 10(1)(b) of the principal Act, as amended by this House last year, provides that the Minister, by notice in the Gazette, may determine timber prices on the basis which he lays down after consultation with the Forestry Council. The intention here was to create a mechanism whereby to determine prices. These amendments were welcomed very enthusiastically by timber growers, because they considerably strengthened their negotiating position in the marketing of their products.

Accordingly, at the first meeting of the Forestry Council after the Act was amended last year, the representatives of the timber growers immediately requested the drafting of regulations in order to implement the provisions of the amended section 10 of the Act in practice. These efforts on the part of the primary timber producers were in the first place opposed by the processors of timber products, and moreover the legal problem to which the hon. the Minister referred, cropped up. Since there is doubt at present in regard to the legal validity of an step which the Minister would want to take in terms of the existing legislation, it is necessary that the Bill be further amended. That is the reason why this Bill is before the House at present.

I want to submit that it is urgently necessary, and that it is also in the interests of the growers of timber products—timber in the round—that the price determining machinery be put in order immediately and that it should be made possible to apply it in practice as well. The proposed new wording of section 10 of the principal Act states the matter very clearly, and provides that the Minister, after consulting the Forestry Council, may prescribe the steps to be taken before he may intervene, if necessary, and determine the prices of the timber himself. This is a welcome addition to the legal provisions.

It is also to be welcomed that the measure before us provides that the prices which the Minister may determine in those circumstances, will be the minimum prices. I believe that it will result in the necessary flexibility and that it will also leave sufficient room so that buyers and sellers of timber in the round need not approach the Minister too often in regard to price fixings. I sincerely hope that the legislation will afford the industry the stability it so desperately needs. Like the hon. member for Humansdorp, I too hope that this will be an incentive for the growers and the processors of timber to arrive at prices which will provide all those involved with their proper share. Should it happen that the Minister has to intervene and lay down minimum prices, I expect that the two parties will display greater realism and a more accommodating spirit, enabling them to reach a mutual agreement themselves.

I do not experience the same problems as the hon. member for Orange Grove in regard to the proposed new section 1A. I believe it is necessary for this legislation, too, to have the necessary teeth to enable it to work properly in practice. For this reason, and for the other reasons I have mentioned, I welcome this legislation, and it gives me pleasure to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for the support which this Bill received from all the political parties in this House. Of course I cannot agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Orange Grove, viz.—

†In this respect I have to agree with the hon. member for Mooi River. There is no actual difference between what we intended to do last year and what is contained in the Bill with which we are dealing now. However, I do not want to argue with hon. members on this point. I am very grateful for their support. Therefore I should rather avoid arguments and go ahead and try to solve the problems of the industry.

*The hon. member for Orange Grove asked how we were going to ensure that these provisions were implemented. He said: “It is not easy to enforce; there are certain dangers in enforcing it” The hon. member for Mooi River provided the answer by saying that the growers did so themselves. The growers, and their organizations, determine when people are not complying with the provisions or are not maintaining the fixed price. Consequently it is not necessary for the department to employ officials to establish whether there have been abuses. This provision will be applicable only after a long procedure, on request of the growers, has been adopted by the Forestry Council, as indicated by the hon. member for Ermelo. Then only does the Minister fix the price. In fact, as the hon. member said, this is to a certain extent a sword hanging over the heads of these people in order to protect the small grower. If an agreement cannot be reached, there is a prescribed procedure which has to be followed, and only after that will the Minister exercise his price fixing powers. Consequently I feel that this is a very flexible matter which rests with the growers themselves. This enables growers, to a large extent, to arrange their own affairs themselves.

The prediction made by the hon. member for Orange Grove, i.e. that this was the prelude to control by the Marketing Council, is not a reasonable conclusion at this stage.

I want to leave this matter at that and once again express my appreciation to the hon. member for Mooi River for his support of this Bill. I know that he is familiar with the industry. He speaks like a person who is constantly involved in the industry and who realizes the problems of the small grower in particular. He, mentioned, quite rightly, that the nurserymen themselves had asked for this legislation.

The hon. member for Ermelo referred to certain problems and explained very clearly how the price determining machinery would work and that there was a need for it. The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to discussions on the Select Committee and once again emphasized that the provisions would only be implemented if there was a dispute. He also indicated that the Forestry Council had given a great deal of attention to this aspect. It will be possible to discuss the whole question of the forestry industry and its attendant problems when the Vote comes up for discussion. Consequently I do not want to go into detail today.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As is apparent from the long title, the purpose of this Bill is to extend the powers of the council to establish calibrating facilities, to extend the powers of the State President relating to the appointment of the president of the council and to make better provision for the control of the funds of the council and for the recovery of losses and damages caused by officials of the council.

The introduction of quality insurance programmes in the industry has resulted in a strong demand for reducible calibrations of high accuracy. The CSIR is responsible for the national measurement standards and also responsible for making provision for the calibration of precision instruments the accuracy of which is reducible to the national measurement standards. However, reduction requires the issue of a calibration certificate. At present only the SABS, the CSIR and the Commercial Metrology Division of the Department of Commerce are entitled to issue such certificates, while there are also other laboratories in existence which can do calibration work and which can be authorized to issue reducibility certificates.

Clause 1 of the Bill is aimed at authorizing the CSIR to approve other laboratories for the proposed purpose as well. The aim is to establish a suitable mechanism in the form of a National Calibrating Service—NCS—to monitor the work of other laboratories, to ensure their accuracy and to authorize them to issue calibration certificates.

Clause 2 deals with an aspect I should like to deal with briefly, viz. the appointment of the president of the CSIR. The present president, Dr. C. van der Merwe Brink, was initially appointed by the State President for a term of five years with effect from 5 October 1971. Due to an administrative oversight, the State President was not approached in time for approval of the appointment of Dr. Brink for a further term from 5 October 1976. In order to rectify the situation, it is envisaged by the proposed amendment of section 6 of the principal Act to grant to the State President the power to approve Dr. Brink’s present term of office as president with retroactive effect from 5 October 1976.

†Clause 3 of the Bill deals with the recovery of loss or damage caused by officers and employees of the CSIR. The Treasury has requested that each statutory body lay down its own regulations in regard to the recovery of loss or damage. At present the CSIR has no statutory power to recover such losses without a lawsuit.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will observe that the proposed section in effect determines that if a present or past employee of the council has caused loss or damage to the council in a manner as set out, the accounting officer concerned can determine the amount of such loss or damage and order the person concerned to repay the whole or any part thereof within 30 days. Provision is also made for the guilty person to be able to appeal to the council or a court of law.

As the proposed new section 15B specifically refers to the accounting officer of the council, it is necessary to define these words and also to describe the responsibilities of the accounting officer.

Mr. Speaker, the PFP will support this Bill. We have no problem whatsoever with regard to the Bill.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has spoken to me about the problem that is being dealt with by clause 2. As far as the unfortunate oversight with regard to the appointment of the president is concerned, I want to say that we also have no problem at all with that.

We also have no problem with regard to the accounting responsibilities for any financial loss which will now be dealt with by the accounting officer of the council itself. I just hope that in the light of the very strict rules and regulations that are laid down, there will be a certain amount of discretion when these are applied. I hope that they will only be applied when there is wilful cause of loss of the council’s property. The word “wilful” is not used in the Bill as it stands, but I hope that the interpretation will be that such regulations will only be applied in cases of wilful loss. Otherwise we support this Bill and we have no problem with it.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I hope they have also developed instruments for measuring chronological development along the line of life! We in these benches shall also be supporting the Bill, but we have a few comments to make about the three clauses to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred.

Firstly, clause 1, which amends section 4 of the principal Act, does point to a fair degree of technological development in South Africa, in the sense that it is now possible for us, by means of statutory measure, to empower a particular body to do the calibration of instruments. This is a function which, in previous years, would normally have been performed overseas by the manufacturers of very technologically sophisticated equipment, and I believe we have now reached a stage of technological development in South Africa where this has become extremely necessary because of the advanced state of our instrument manufacturing sector.

Clause 2, which amends section 6 of the principal Act, has been explained to us and we only hope that in future there will not again be such an oversight. In this connection I should like to receive an assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that there was no loss of benefits to the president of the council as a result of this oversight. For instance, one thinks of the possibility that administratively there may be a loss of benefits to the president.

Clause 3 is interesting in that it deals with the procedure for the recovery of losses and damages suffered by the council. We notice that similar legislation was passed in respect of the employees of the Unemployment. Insurance Fund and also in connection with the employees of the Atomic Energy Board.

We do support this in broad principle, but there are some interesting aspects, regarding this type of legislation, to which I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and hon. members. I notice that the hon. the Deputy Minister probably inadvertently used the word “guilty” when he spoke about somebody who has caused the council to suffer losses, but it seems to me that in this case we have a discrepancy between the procedure adopted in common law in the private enterprise situation and the manner in which we intend to recover losses from employees in State corporations. In terms of wage determinations, etc., common law prescribes that no organization may deduct moneys from an employee’s payroll without a garnishee or court order. In this particular case, as we had in two previous cases, we have a procedure where, without recourse to the courts of law, in the first instance, an employee may be found guilty by other employees within that organization. These, obviously, are not people who are trained in the finer points of the law, and therefore it is quite possible that a mistake can be made. We do, of course, notice in the amending Bill that the individual has recourse to the courts of the country, but that could be a fairly expensive way of proving that one is innocent.

I should also like to inquire from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he can satisfy us as to whether, in the case of an employee who has recourse to the courts and is found not guilty, the council will then bear the costs of that action. Having made those comments, let me just add that we have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support of the Bill. Time is very limited, but I can assure them that I have noted their remarks, and I can also assure them that these regulations will be applied with the utmost discretion.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 22, the House adjourned at 18h00.