Mr. Speaker, I move—

At the time of the drafting of the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963), it was felt that nursery school education—pre-school education—was not an integral part of the education services that had to be provided by the State, but that the community had to take the lead in this regard. Although the value of nursery school education was realized, the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963, made no provision for the establishment, erection and maintenance of nursery schools by the State. Provision was only made for the granting of grants-in-aid to the governing bodies of nursery schools established on the initiative of the private sector. However, the latest trend is to recognize to a greater extent the exceptional value of purposeful and ordered activities for the development of the pre-school child, particularly in the present-day family circle, where economic factors necessitate the mother having to work and, in consequence, being unable to give her pre-school children the necessary attention they deserve during her working hours. The latter social phenomenon is common among the lower socio-economic group of the Coloured community in particular.

The value of such pre-school education has already been recognized by other education departments, by making legal provision for the establishment of facilities for pre-school education by the authorities, in the form of (a) nursery schools and (b) nursery classes. Provision has also been made for the subsidizing of nursery schools that do not fall under the direct control of the State.

It must be mentioned that education at nursery schools that do not form part of a school with primary classes, is provided by education departments for children older than three years who have not yet attained the age at which they may be admitted to an ordinary school. However, education in nursery school classes, that is to say, classes attached to schools with primary classes, are only for children in the year immediately preceding the calendar year in which they attain the age of admission to an ordinary school. The instruction in a nursery school class is identical to that in the final year at a nursery school. A nursery school class is established only by a school that has suitable vacant accommodation. Such classes are usually established at schools when there are no nursery schools in that area.

†Where the training of nursery school teachers is at present privately conducted with the aid of subsidies from the Administration of Coloured Affairs, the latter should in future take over the responsibility for this training. As section 21 of the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963), already makes provision for this, no amendment is consequently necessary.

At the present stage of development, the Administration of Coloured Affairs gives the highest priority to the successful conclusion of the progressive implementation of compulsory school attendance for all pupils from 7 to 16 years. As a result of this, the establishment of State nursery schools will receive comparatively little attention until such time as the full effect of compulsory school attendance, which only this year has been extended to the age of 16 years, has been worked through to its full consequence.

It is therefore not the intention to establish State nursery schools on a large scale in the immediate future, although the possibility of establishing individual schools or classes for the practical training of nursery school teachers is not excluded. The opinion is expressed that improved subsidies to private nursery schools will have the effect of reducing the provision of such facilities by the State. Payment of subsidies to nursery schools on the following basis, corresponding to those paid by the Cape Education Department, is being considered—

1. (a) Per capita subsidies, or
2. (b) subsidies in respect of salaries and allowances to qualified nursery school teachers.

A nursery school will not be entitled to both subsidies but only to one of the above. These proposed improved subsidies do not affect the amendment of the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963), but only the amendment of the regulations promulgated in terms of the said Act.

*Mr. Speaker, the education service of the provincial education department was expanded quite recently to include nursery school education as well, and consequently it is essential for the Administration of Coloured Affairs to proceed pari passo in this regard. As is clear from my account of the factors considered in amending the Education Act under discussion, that the new measure will contribute to the continued development of Coloured education.

Mr. Speaker, allow me in the first instance to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I am very grateful that he has not simply moved this measure and moved on. I believe that although we are only dealing here with a very short Bill, we are dealing with a very, very important Bill. I am therefore grateful to him that he has regarded it in that light.

I shall return to a number of points made during the course of his speech. In particular I should like to express my disappointment at the fact that there is not going to be emphasis on State nursery schools. I shall make that clear as I develop my argument.

We will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, as well as all the other stages. I think this measure merits a little attention in terms of its history. The initial legislation was introduced in this House in 1963. As early as the 1950s it became apparent that there was very strong feeling, primarily amongst the Whites, that there should be a completely separate department for the education of Coloureds. As a result of that, in 1957 there was a very important debate in the Cape Provincial Council, a debate which led to a decision being taken by a vote of 24 to 21—a very narrow majority—urging that all education of Coloureds should come under one separate Department of Coloured Affairs. As a direct result of that we had the introduction of a Bill, and then the consequent Act 47 of 1963.

I think we must stress, in passing, that there was very considerable opposition from the majority of the Coloured population at that time, and of course there is still a very strongly held view that all education should fall under one department. This particular Bill, which provides for the possibility, at least, of further nursery schools—the Bill speaks of “the establishment, erection and maintenance of nursery schools for the education of Coloured persons”—is a very definite improvement and is strongly welcomed by the official Opposition.

We are dealing here with the problem of slow learners and non-academic pupils who have not, I believe, had the opportunity for development in order to find a worthy place in South African society. We are dealing here with what the Erika Theron Commission referred to in its report as a “subculture of poverty”. There is no question that there is, in fact, a direct relationship between the opportunities afforded young children and the home backgrounds from which they come. There are major socio-economic factors that have led, and still do lead, to a very extensive drop-out rate in our Coloured schools.

This is to be taken with the utmost seriousness when one realizes the magnitude of this drop-out rate. I quote now from a diagram published in the Erika Theron Commission, on page 167, and the House will recall that this report was published in 1976. So obviously there will have been some change and, in general, I would think some change for the better. Of the Coloured children starting school in 1964, those reaching Std. 8 totalled a mere 1,6%, those reaching Std. 9, 0,6% and those reaching Std. 10, 0,4%, making a total of 2,6% of the total Coloured school population in 1964. This had improved over the next 10 years. In 1974 the total percentage of children reaching Stds. 8, 9 and 10 was 3,9%. Obviously that figure will have gone proportionately higher since 1974. The point that must be underlined is that although there has been a gradual improvement, most Coloured pupils—I stress the word “most”—leave school before they have the opportunity of receiving a truly differentiated education or, what is perhaps much more important, an essential vocational education. I believe—and I shall try to demonstrate this in the course of my speech—that one of the major retarding factors has been the lack of nursery schools, and that is why we welcome this provision because we believe it is going to bring about a very definite improvement by way of the introduction of more such schools.

One could go on to quote other figures to emphasize this. For example, even though there has been some progress, the drop-out rate is still very serious indeed. For example, during the period 1964-’74 there were losses, in both primary and high school pupils, in all standards from the lowest to the highest. In 1964 85 000 pupils enrolled in Sub. A. Just less than 6 000 of them, i.e. 5 777, or 6,8%, were in Std. 9 in 1974. I think this type of analysis gives an approximate indication of the high drop-out rate due to failure and to leaving school, but in the main because the pupils did not have the opportunity to start in the best way possible. Let me motivate this further. We are, obviously, dealing with a section of the population living in poorer, sub-economic circumstances. Pupils therefore enter the labour market much earlier than is the case with some other groups. There is poorer adjustment and poorer motivation at an early age.

I want to address the hon. the Minister particularly on the point of compulsory school attendance, which he himself also raised. The fact that it has been well-nigh impossible to implement that as much as we would like to see it implemented adds weight to the argument I am advancing. The fact of the matter is that it is the principal of the school who in most cases has to ensure that compulsory attendance at school is guaranteed. That is an impossible job for him. No one can deny that. We can only set out the ideal and hope very much that, as development takes place and circumstances change, more and more children will actually attend school as they ought to in terms of the law.

According to the census of 1970 23,5% of all Coloureds of six years of age and over had no education at all. Obviously, again, that is a long time ago. A new census is about to be taken. Let me, however, repeat the figures applicable 10 years ago: 23,5% of all Coloureds of six years of age and over had no education whatsoever, i.e. nearly a quarter of the total population. If one wants a comparative figure, the figure for Whites in 1970 was 2,3%.

The added factor which lends urgency to the introduction of this measure is the youthfulness of the Coloured population as a whole and the high proportion of children of pre-school age. This results in enormous pressure being placed on the educational institutions which provide for Coloured people. There is a wide disparity between the number of pre-school children in the Coloured population and the pre-school children in, say, the White population. That should, of course, lead us to the conclusion that a far greater priority should be given to the whole area of pre-school children than to any other group. I want to warn that the pressure is going to be even greater in the future. Even though it is difficult to cope with it today, it is going to be even more difficult in the future because, obviously, not only are there going to be more and more children in the pre-school age group and in the group in their first few years at school, but there is going to be additional pressure for more accommodation and more teachers as one goes up the scale. We have got to be aware of this and we have to plan accordingly.

To quote a few other figures, 35,5% of all school-going Coloured children were in sub-standards in 1972. That is the latest figure I could find. The hon. the Deputy Minister may have figures that are more up to date. Again by way of comparison, the figure for the White group is 18,3%. The total enrolment has increased quite dramatically. In 1964 it was 386 732, while 10 years later it had grown to 591 850. The additional fact we must take cognizance of is that 80% of the total number only reach Std. 4 and 90% reach Std. 6. Obviously we want the best possible education for all the children that live in South Africa. There is, however, the added economic pressure for the best possible trained children and young people to enter into the market to provide the skills which South Africa needs if it is going to achieve and maintain, or even exceed, the optimistic growth rate the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to earlier this year.

With that by way of background one must look at the actual pre-school education situation. In this regard I want to refer to two specific areas. I want to look at the one in terms of an educational point of view and at the other in terms of a socio-economic point of view. I think that most educationalists throughout the world have for some time now reached the conclusion that the first seven years of the life of a child are the most important years in terms of setting or laying down an intellectual base on which to build.

Is that where you went wrong?

No, Sir. It is probable that I did lack a great deal. There is no question about it, but there is also no question about it that, unlike the hon. the Minister, I have made up for it while he is still there. I think there is a tremendous amount of truth in the old Roman Catholic belief that the first seven years of a child’s life is the most important. If that is true, then one immediately has to look at the fact that compulsory education for Coloured children in South Africa only starts at the age of seven. That is why I believe it is so very, very important that we are now turning our attention to what has up to now been regarded as a luxury. Now we are beginning to understand that it is an absolute necessity, because again and again the drop-out rate, the lack of motivation, the lack of ability and the lack of being able to cope have already been predetermined by the lack of opportunity for children of the Coloured population group between the ages of one and seven years. As a result of regarding pre-school education for the Coloured community as a luxury, because of our concentration on primary, secondary and post-school education, understandably the State has very largely left nursery and pre-school education to welfare organizations, churches, educational and private bodies, with, let me immediately hasten to say, State subsidies to assist these bodies to do the work which the State was not able to do at the time. I think that no one will deny that the subsidies are very small and because nursery schools have to comply with basic requirements in respect of accommodation, sanitary facilities, etc., and are regularly inspected, facilities for pre-school education for Coloured children have, to put it at its lowest, been provided at an exceptionally slow rate. I want to try and give further figures to illustrate that. If one looks at State subsidized nursery schools for Coloureds—and again I quote the figures for 1964—one will find that throughout the country there were then only 32 such schools. By 1974 this figure had risen to 44. That is a definite improvement, and obviously there has been further improvement since then. If one looks at the figures for 1976, we find that there were about 400 000 Coloured children in the two to six year age group. In 1975 only 400 000 of these children were in nursery schools and 6 036 in crèches. That means that only 2,5% of the total number of children in this age group were accommodated in institutions for pre-school education. When one sees that kind of statistic one realizes that we have a very long journey ahead of us. I believe that we have made a most important start in the Bill that is before the House at the moment, but we must not imagine—and that is why I am disappointed in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s comments during his introductory speech—that because of the need for primary, secondary and tertiary education it is not possible to provide nursery schools in a very large measure.

I believe that our priority in that regard is quite wrong. Educationally it is absolutely wrong. We have to have a foundation on which to build. I know that one gets pulled into a situation in which one has to develop primary and secondary education and so on. However, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give—obviously not only in relation to this Bill, but in relation to the department as a whole—further consideration to devoting more capital, more energy and more understanding in providing for the pre-school child in the Coloured community. Until recently 370 000 Coloured women—this figure has since grown—in the Republic were working women. Obviously not all of them are married and not all of them have children. However, a very large percentage of them are married and have children, but only a small percentage of working mothers are enjoying the benefit of pre-school education for their children. In the Cape Peninsula, for example, there were in 1975 67 pre-school centres with a total enrolment figure of 5 633, with 5 700 still on the waiting list. There exists no record of those parents who have given up hope and have not even placed the names of their children on the waiting list. As a result of this focus on primary and secondary education and a lack of focus on pre-school education, other organizations have tried to fill that vacuum. I believe that in this debate it is fitting to pay tribute to an organization such as the project Grass Roots and also the Early-learning Centre in Athlone which was founded in 1972. These organizations have done an enormous amount where the State has not been able to. I believe that we must pay tribute to them.

I want to stress again the importance of nursery schools in the total educational development of the child. We cannot underestimate that. I believe that many of the learning problems which begin later on, owe their origin to the fact that in those first formative years the child was deprived of many of the things which other groups in the total South African community take for granted. In this regard I can refer to the lack of library facilities, electricity, privacy, parents who have the education and opportunity to encourage their children and the fact that very often the mother is the only parent who has to look after the whole family and has to work while the children are left alone at home to run around in the neighbourhood. The environment is of the utmost importance in the development of the character and the intellectual growth of that child. Especially those who live in a socially and economically deprived environment will appreciate the development which will take place as a result of the introduction of this Bill. I believe and hope that as a result of this there will be a reduction in the drop-out rate, something which I believe is very important. I must remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that if we are going to move in this direction—and I hope that we will move even faster than he has indicated—there is going to be a need for skilled teachers who will be able to cope with this age group. It requires a particular skill. There is only one training centre in the whole country that I am aware of. I may be wrong, but the only one I know of is the Athlone Training Centre. That training centre produces 15 teachers or thereabouts per annum, a number which is totally inadequate. In the Cape Peninsula about 80 to 90 teachers and 218 assistants are employed at pre-school training institutions. 43% of these institutions have no trained staff and the average teacher/ pupil ratio is 1:73.

What do you suggest?

The hon. member for Bellville asks what I suggest. If it has not become obvious to him already, he obviously does not understand what I have been saying in the last 20 odd minutes. I am saying that, firstly, we welcome this Bill; and secondly, that it is not enough. It will never be enough. We have an enormous backlog, and let us therefore readjust and readapt our priorities. If it is true that this particular section of the South African community has been deprived—and I challenge anyone in this House to suggest that that is not the case—then I believe we ought to be spending even more on the future development—education and the character—of so-called Coloured child in South Africa than we are spending even on the White child, and we all know that that is not the case. So we need to spend money to provide accommodation and teachers. All those things are going to take time, and I am grateful that the department is making a start, but I urge the hon. the Deputy Minister, while I support the Second Reading of this Bill, that we should move even faster than anticipated in history.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pinelands and his party for supporting this legislation, in spite of the jeremied which the hon. member delivered afterwards. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister will react to some of his objections.

A tremendous plea was made for the expansion of nursery schools. I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that at the moment there are more important priorities than the large-scale expansion of these nursery schools. Pre-primary education is not compulsory for Whites, nor will it be compulsory for Coloureds. Even if the facilities had been there, there is no guarantee that they would be properly utilized. I do not think that anyone will object to the legislation that is before the House at the moment. As the hon. the Deputy Minister explained to us, provision is being made in the legislation for nursery school education where the need for it arises. The Coloured Persons’ Education Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1963 and to begin with, did not make provision for nursery school education. The period from 1963 to 1980 is a very short one to a department, but in a moment I am going to quote something to show what has been achieved by the Department of Coloured Education in this short period. To my mind, it has been most satisfactory and extremely successful and one cannot but be proud of the results.

As progress was made in Coloured education, it became possible to give attention to providing for nursery school education where the need arose. There was a tremendous need for the expansion of facilities for the Coloured people in the sphere of education. In this sphere, the policy of the department has always been to bring the primary school to the pupil and to bring the pupil to the high school. There had to be tremendous expansion as regards providing buildings, and we have already come so far that compulsory schooling has already been extended to include children up to the age of 16 years, or children who reach Std. 8. In the past, nursery schools and nursery school education have always been the sole responsibility of private initiative and charity, for which one is very grateful. By making provision in this legislation for nursery school education as well as for the training of staff, the department can also be of financial assistance to these bodies by means of subsidies and taking over the payment of salaries in the past, which were only subsidized. However, it would only be wishful thinking to expect nursery schools to be erected at a rapid tempo from now on. Generally speaking, they must be fitted in where space is available, because as I have already said, compulsory education now extends to Std. 8, and this will place a further burden on the department.

The hon. member for Pinelands quoted a number of figures and statistics here, but if I am correct, his statistics go as far back as 1974. I found that this was the most recent year for which he quoted statistics. One could probably ascertain a little more about what is happening today, in 1980. I just want to quote what the position was last year. Mr. A. J. Arendse, Director of Education in the Coloured Affairs Administration, declared on 4 January 1980—

Surely that is a tremendous improvement in the level of education of our teachers and of the Coloured children? He went on to say—

If we take a look at enrolment in schools—I am taking the figures for 1965, only four years after the Education Act was passed—we see that the number of pupils that were enrolled in primary schools, i.e. from Sub. A to Std. 5, was 349 197 and in the secondary schools, i.e. Std. 6 to Std. 10, it was 35 956, a total of 385 153. In 1972, seven years later, 479 735 pupils were enrolled in primary schools—already a much larger number than in the previous seven years—and 64 743 at secondary schools. In 1979, last year: Primary schools, 589 158; and secondary schools, 123 107. The increase in enrolments at school was approximately 340% between 1965 and 1979. Surely our Coloured education has made tremendous progress over this short term?

The success story continues. We are being asked here for better provision to be made for ordinary teachers, as well as nursery school teachers, but the picture for teacher training looked like this: The number of first-year students in 1965 was 1 026 at the post-Std. 8 level, and 507 at the post-Matric-level. In 1972 there were 907 as against 1 000; in 1979 the number at the post-Std. 8 level dropped to 741 and the number at the post-Matric-level increased to 929. In 1980 the post-Std. 8 level dropped to 425 as against 1 026 in 1977 whilst the post-Matric-level increased from 507 in 1977 to 1 110 in 1980. Therefore, it has more than doubled.

Let us now take a look at the qualifications of the teachers. Including Whites in temporary service, there were 665 graduates in 1972; 5 183 matriculants; and 11 957 with lesser qualifications. This is out of a total of 17 805. In 1979 there were 1 371 graduates. Once again, the number has more than doubled. There were 7 683 with post-matriculation qualifications and 15 579 with lesser qualifications.

Judging by these numbers, the Department of Coloured Affairs can look back on a proud record over the past 17 years. This is also what the legislation envisages, viz. to improve on this record and in doing so to provide for nursery school education as well.

I also want to refer to the capital expenditure in this regard. Since 1969, 203 primary schools, 17 secondary schools and 20 boarding schools have been built.

I cannot but congratulate the Department of Coloured Education as well as the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Coloured Affairs on this success story that extends over the past 17 years. That is why—as both the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. the Deputy Minister have already said—Coloured education will continue to require increasingly large sums of money. However, it remains my priority to make provision for the school-going child, since we have now expanded compulsory schooling, before we make provision on a large scale for pre-primary children. It is true that this legislation provides for the pre-primary child, and the hon. member for Pinelands did point this out. The children that are being affected here, are largely those of working mothers who do not earn a large salary. This provision is therefore necessary, but we must keep our sense of balance and make it a matter of priority that this will not be done to the detriment of higher education.

Therefore, it is a pleasure for me to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Beaufort West quoted a large number of figures during the course of his speech to indicate what was being done both by and with the assistance of the Government with regard to Coloured education. The hon. member for Pinelands also quoted a large number of statistics to show that a great deal more can be done.

We on these benches support the Second Reading of the Bill because we are of the opinion that this Bill will, in a measure, achieve more with regard to Coloured education by placing greater emphasis on the basis of pre-school education and on nursery schools. Therefore we intend supporting the Bill through all its stages. We do, however, feel that this is an opportune time to make certain comments regarding certain aspects concerning education in the Coloured community.

The Erika Theron Commission highlighted certain aspects and certain shortcomings in regard to pre-school education. I think it is important to note that as far as all the race groups are concerned, in recent times a great deal more emphasis is being given to pre-school education than in the past. The necessity of realizing that this is an important initial phase of education, should receive due attention so that it can be developed into something which will be of assistance to schoolchildren in the course of their careers. The Erika Theron Commission, which as we know investigated the socio-economic position of the Coloured population group in particular, made certain recommendations. Recommendation 81 contained in the White Paper on the report states—

not receiving sufficient attention from the authorities and recommends that—

1. (a) the State assume a greater measure of responsibility in respect of pre-school education by—

1. (i) paying the salaries of teachers/ assistants at approved nursery schools,
2. (ii) raising the subsidy per child,
3. (iii) providing approved nursery schools with the basic furniture, and
4. (iv) paying the rental of buildings for approved nursery schools.

1. (b) with due regard to the fluid nature of nursery school programmes and the broad spectrum of children as regards their economic background, a considerable degree of flexibility be permitted in programmes to which infants are exposed;
2. (c) subsidized research be encouraged in this field;
3. (d) the training of nursery school teachers should be subsidized, and student teachers should also qualify for study loans;
4. (e) in the provision and subsidization of nursery schools, preference be given to areas where there are large numbers of children from socio-economically/culturally handicapped families.

I think this illustrates the importance the Erika Theron Commission placed on the question of pre-school education in the Coloured community. I believe that this type of education is a vital factor for the Coloured community in particular because of their socio-economic position. It would go a long way towards preparing Coloured children for their scholastic careers. It is hoped that the passing of this Bill will result in greater emphasis being placed on nursery schools and the pre-school education of children.

The whole situation as far as subsidies are concerned, is obviously a financial one and one which I am sure will receive the consideration of the responsible Minister. However, it is to be hoped that some of the remarks he made will be given further thought and that further emphasis will be placed on pre-school education among the Coloured community. In many Coloured townships there are virtually no nursery schools. Pre-school education is virtually unobtainable. As far as the Coloured community in Natal is concerned, I know that a great deal of difficulty is experienced by parents to try to find suitable centres for their children to be instructed in pre-school education. We know of the strain being placed on day-care centres for the Coloured community as well as on play centres, crèches and other places of care where the children of working mothers can be looked after and where they can be initiated into pre-school education. Provision is made here that the age of a child is raised from two to three years before he can be admitted to a nursery school, and I hope that due consideration is being given to the availability of day-care centres, play centres and creches for those children who are not yet ready for nursery school education. There is a definite need that those children should receive some guidance. They certainly require some measure of care while their mothers are working.

The whole idea of making provision for this type of early education, is a vitally important one for the Coloured community. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister who is piloting the Bill will, when he replies, give some indication whether this particular aspect has also been taken into account.

Clause 1 deals with a class which is attached to an ordinary school in which Coloured children receive education in the year preceding the year in which regular attendance by them at an ordinary school shall be compulsory. Here I should urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to take steps in order to ensure, where it is possible, that pre-school classes be attached to some of the existing schools in order to cater for this particular need. Certainly such classes are provided at many schools for children of the White community. It has been found that a pre-school class attached to a school is an immeasurable benefit to the children attending such pre-school classes. I mention this for a specific reason. During the last few days it was brought to my attention that a number of Coloured schoolchildren in Durban who had been admitted to schools were subsequently, as the result of an inquiry by the Department of Coloured Affairs, found to be under age. Consequently the parents were instructed to remove those children from those schools. This also involves a situation in which parents incurred costs in respect of school uniforms and other school accessories for those first-year pupils, only to be told later that they had to remove their children from the school. I will make available this information to the hon. the Deputy Minister to enable him to reply to some of these points that were raised. However, it does seem a great pity that there is a situation in which parents who are anxious to see their children go to school succeed in getting them admitted to a school only to be instructed subsequently to remove them again following an inspection or inquiry or investigation by an inspector from the Department of Coloured Affairs. This merely happens because such children have not yet attained the age of six years before 30 June. This is a difficulty which arises. However, it could be obviated if some provision could be made for pre-school classes to be instituted at ordinary schools. Therefore I request the hon. the Deputy Minister to give careful and serious consideration to providing pre-school classes at ordinary schools in order to encourage these people and to ascertain that they are given every opportunity of fulfilling their scholastic potential.

We in these benches certainly support this legislation. We encourage every step that is taken by the Government to ensure that a better and wider system of education is made available for the benefit of all race groups. Particularly as far as our Coloured community is concerned, knowing of the socio-economic difficulties of a group within that community, we want to see that this receives the greatest possible emphasis. Having heard all the statistics quoted by the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Beaufort West, I was somewhat reluctant to quote statistics too. However, I found it quite interesting to read in the latest Official Yearbook of the high percentage of Coloured children now regularly attending school. There it was indicated that 28% of the entire Coloured population were now regularly attending school. This is something which we in these benches welcome. It is for the benefit not only of the Coloured community but of the country as a whole, as well as for the benefit of the economy as a whole and of the whole quality of life in South Africa. It is for the benefit of all race groups in this country if we ensure that children go to school at an early age and that the early phases of education begin at the right time in order to ensure that these people are being given the greatest opportunity of fulfilling their potential.

Mr. Speaker, before I react to hon. members’ speeches, I wish to take the liberty of making a prefatory remark here. I think that we were on the point of making history here in Parliament yesterday. Earlier in the day, before hon. members began to wax so eloquent, the general idea was that we would still have a chance to make such progress with the Order Paper that I would be able to bring up this legislation for discussion.

At that juncture—as far as I know for the first time in the history of this Parliament—a Coloured man was sitting in the officials’ bay. He was Mr. Arendse, Director of Coloured Education. I think this is an occasion which cannot be allowed to pass without mention. I think it is a proud occasion. I find it a pity that he cannot be here this afternoon owing to other obligations which he has.

It is a pity he does not sit here.

He should be sitting on the other side.

Nevertheless I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to mention that it happened. This is an event of which we may be proud and I should have liked to have congratulated Mr. Arendse in his presence today on his department, in the first term in which he is Director of Coloured Education, being able to boast last year after the final results were out of the best results ever achieved as far as Coloured education is concerned.

In my reply to the speeches by hon. members I want to begin where the hon. member for Umbilo left off.

He made a good speech.

Yes, he did not make a bad speech. He never makes a bad speech, but then he never spends most of his time talking politics either. The hon. member would do well to learn that lesson from him.

The hon. member for Pinelands stated, on the basis of figures at his disposal, but which are already out of date, that a quarter of the Coloured children were at school. The hon. member for Umbilo presented this House with more recent statistics, and I think that as soon as the most recent statistics are available it will be possible to establish that a very high percentage of Coloured children are in fact at school.

It is particularly striking that an exceptional awareness of education has recently arisen amongst the Coloured population. As a result Coloured children are literally streaming to the schools. Fortunately we have now reached the stage at which the annual increase in school attendance on the primary as well as secondary level exceeds the increase in the Coloured population. The present situation is such that on the level of primary education the school attendance is increasing at an annual rate of 5,3%, while the increase in attendance on the secondary level is greater, i.e. an annual rate of 11,2%. This is also apparent from the figures quoted by the hon. member for Beaufort West. The Coloured population is at present increasing at an annual rate of 2,9%. This indicates that we are making up the backlog. There is great hope for the future, but there is an enormous task that has to be performed.

I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Pinelands that the provision of pre-school education is an extremely important aspect of the training of our children, and the more so for the Coloureds because we have there the socio-economic factor that such a large percentage of mothers have to work in order to keep the household going. Consequently it is far more important to them than to the Whites. Having said that, it ought to be clear that there is no unwillingness, no unfavourable disposition on our part. It is, however, as the hon. member said, a question of priorities.

Personally I am sorry that we cannot do more about the principle, but I do not wish to create expectations which will enable the hon. member to attack me next year and ask what has happened in the meantime; after all, I had made such fine promises. I would prefer to say that we should begin in a modest, yet positive way and see what we can achieve with the means at our disposal, because that is the predominant factor: Money.

It is true, as the hon. member said, that we must weigh up the priorities and spend more money, but the hon. member must bear in mind that approximately 50,5% of the budget which the CRC has disposed of up to now—and this year it amounts to almost R311 million—has already been spent on education. This shows what a high priority those people, the members of the Executive, the representatives of the Coloureds, themselves place on education in contrast to welfare services, for example, which are also important among the Coloured population, and in their rural and local areas. For the upliftment of these people it is of cardinal importance.

It is a question of priorities we have to examine, and when we do so, we must first try to cope with what we have undertaken, to chew what we have bitten off, and this year we have indeed bitten off a great deal. We have extended the age for compulsory school attendance to 16 years. No hon. member in this House will quarrel with me and say that this was not the correct step to take. It is going to require all the attention, means and available funds of this department to achieve that goal, i.e. to get the children who have to attend school to do so. The hon. member for Pinelands said that it was an almost superhuman task.

While we are dealing with this, we have another problem, and that is the lack of sufficiently trained male and female teachers. This is an acute problem. We would like to turn our attention to the training of more nursery school teachers, but we do not have enough to serve our ordinary schools on a daily basis. Perhaps I am being a little pessimistic, but I have a grave fear that, owing to the attractive opportunities in the private sector for Coloureds who have achieved a certain standard of education, and who may perhaps be leaving the universities, they might in future give preference to those professions and will not take up teaching.

Consequently I want to make an appeal to the Coloured population not to subordinate this important sector, this important service to their people, to financial considerations. There is something which I can say here today as an Afrikaner, and that is that when our own people, my people, were in a subordinate position, our very first priority was to get an education and to ensure that our children became teachers in order to teach our children. [Interjections.] Eventually we had to teach the children of English-speaking people as well. [Interjections.] That is why we are where we are today. With the modest means which we had at our disposal, we as Afrikaners are where we are today. I therefore want to make an appeal to the Coloureds to what we did. If I look at the trends, I am afraid that we are not receiving sufficient recruits who make themselves available for teaching careers. All hon. members are able to help with this.

As I have said, we have the problem that we do not have sufficient male and female teachers. However, I am very pleased that we are finding Whites today, farmers’ wives who make themselves available to teach Coloureds in the farm schools in particular where the Coloured teachers do not establish themselves because there are no social activities which they find attractive enough. I am pleased that even the S.A. Defence Force is making young qualified teachers available in remote areas to staff schools which could not otherwise have been staffed. However, this is being turned into a political issue and there is agitation afoot to have these schools closed down because a White man is doing the teaching. This is a problem we have.

Another problem is that of making accommodation available. In the large urban complexes we are not able to build enough schools. We are building them by the hundreds but we simply cannot get ahead. While we are doing this, we cannot think of launching a large-scale nursery school project. We cannot do so while we are not able to make provision for the ordinary child who has to attend school.

It is the desire of the Minister of Coloured Relations and of the department, it is our ideal to have every Coloured child who has to attend school on the school bench at the earliest opportunity. This keeps the skolly element off the streets. But as long as we have double and even treble shifts we cannot think of starting nursery schools in those areas.

I want to tell both the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Pinelands that it is not our intention to do nothing. There are areas where the influx is not so great and where there are classrooms available. We shall make a start with nursery school education there. However, we shall not be able to do so in those places where there are vast concentrations of Coloureds. I can give this assurance: Where classrooms are available at primary schools we shall introduce pre-school classes for children from their sixth year onwards.

The hon. member pointed out that children were being taken out of school because they were not six years old yet.

Seven years.

Six years.

Yes, it is six years, for at the age of seven years they have to go to school. I am referring to the previous year in which they are six years of age. For the pre-primary class it is six years. If a child does not turn six before 30 June, we cannot, unfortunately, include him in a pre-primary class that year. We already have too few classes. Such a child will simply have to go to nursery school. In cases where some of these children have been turned away, one cannot blame the inspectors for doing so. They have a duty to perform. We are not doing this out of ill-will. There are enough children to fill the classes, so that we cannot make any exceptions. The age in question has been laid down. The same applies in respect of school attendance.

Our modus operandi in future is to begin where classrooms are in any way available. The intention is of course to establish a few schools in central areas where future nursery school teachers can be trained. As the hon. member for Pinelands said, there is only one training centre so far, i.e. the one at Athlone. I can tell the hon. member that as far as financing is concerned, we are paying for just about everything at the institution. We are paying the principal’s salary in full. The salaries of the other staff and expenses are calculated on the basis of the difference between revenue and approved expenditure. However, their income is usually nil. We are dealing here with people who are able to afford a very small portion of the expenses out of their own pockets. Consequently the State is paying for almost all approved expenditure at this training institution.

As far as the nursery schools are concerned, we are trying to encourage them, either by paying the salaries of the teaching staff in full, or by contributing a reasonably high per capita amount, i.e. R10 per child per term. The hon. member for Umbilo asked whether we could not give some attention to the amount. I want to tell him that we are already doing so. Negotiations are at present taking place. We have also raised this matter with the Treasury, and as a result a larger allocation is now under consideration by the Treasury.

I want to refer next to what the hon. member for Beaufort West said. I want to draw specific attention to one specific figure which he mentioned, and that is the positive trend discernible in the training of Coloured teachers. This is a very important factor. In 1977 there were 1 600 students with only Std. 8 training attending the teachers’ training colleges for Coloureds. In 1980 this figure had decreased to 425. In 1977 there were only 507 students attending teachers’ training colleges and universities who had passed Std. 10. This year the figure is 1 110. This means that the figure more than doubled within three years. The trend is therefore that there are more students with a minimum of Std. 10 who are coming forward to make themselves available for the teaching profession. Of course this number is still too small, and we must pay attention to increasing this number. I do not think that there is any lack of sympathy and goodwill on the part of the Government and the department to do everything possible in this connection to help achieve our great ideal, viz. to get children who are liable to school attendance on to the school benches up to their 16th year, and to keep them there. To keep them there is of course a different matter. Today we are not conducting an education debate in the true sense of the word although we have discussed Coloured education in general and have touched on Coloured nursery school education here and there. While we have this opportunity to do so, we must avail ourselves of it, but in future there will be other opportunities when we will be able to discuss it in detail and to better effect.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point with regard to the definition of “nursery school” with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I should perhaps have done this during the Second Reading debate, but I raise it now under this clause. It has been a new departure in many educational institutions to move away from the term “nursery school” and instead to use the term “pre-primary”. Have the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department given consideration to this?

Mr. Chairman, I have not as yet given any specific attention to this matter, but I like the idea. I have no objection to it. I shall consult the educational experts and if it should appear necessary to effect such a change, we shall do so.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, in respect of clause 2 I want to respond to some of the remarks made by the hon. the Deputy Minister in his reply to the Second Reading debate. I want to make specific reference to the addition of the words “nursery schools” in clause 2. I quote from his introductory speech (Hansard, 21 February 1980)—

In his reply the hon. the Deputy Minister has again made reference to this, and I understand the problem fully. He mentioned that it was a question of priority. I want to cross swords with him as to whether or not this is the true priority from an educational point of view. I believe that a large number of the problems amongst children in primary schools start at a younger age. If we are going to make the provision of schooling from the age of seven to the age of 16 our priority without due regard and even further attention to those basic foundations, I think that educationally we are suspect. I believe that we are looking at it from the wrong point of view. We have made it quite clear that we fully support this Bill through all its stages, and all I am asking now is that his department will review that, because I think that in educational terms one’s priority ought to be the laying down of a firm foundation upon which to build. If one does not have that firm foundation, one will not succeed, no matter how much one spends or how many buildings or teachers one has. I believe that is very important. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give consideration to that.

There is a second priority to which I referred in my earlier speech and to which the hon. the Deputy Minister came back in his speech. He quite rightly said that a priority should be seen in terms of the amount of money that is available. I accept that, of course. I think that we have reached, particularly with this hon. Deputy Minister, the point where there is honesty about our past and present intentions about the future needs of our total South African community.

[Inaudible.]

I am not talking about the hon. the Minister of Police, but about the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Do not spoil a good speech.

I think there has been frankness about this. We are talking about the education of people who have known years of deprivation. I want to give one further statistic to strengthen the reason why I am pleading that more money ought to be expended on and found for the provision for pre-primary or nursery schools. I think all of us will agree, even if we do not exactly agree on all its recommendations, that the study undertaken by the Erika Theron Commission over a period of three years was a very thorough study. I quote from page 179 of its report—

Almost the same number; just a little more—

If one is going to talk about priorities, without thinking about what has happened in the past, one simply has to come to terms with the fact that if we are going to provide education for all the children in this country, we have to look again at the situation and ask ourselves the question whether we ought not to be spending even more on a group that has in the past not had the same opportunities. I think it is fair. I think it is something which it is in our own self-interest to do. That is what I mean when I talk about looking at priorities from an educational point of view, from a socio-economical point of view as well as from a historical point of view.

Finally, when I talk about the provision of nursery schools I want to relate to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech where he says we are going to be able to do this and that, but that that is not going to be the main priority. He quite rightly emphasized, and made a special appeal to that end, that Coloured people would give back into education what they had received. I underline and endorse that 100%. If one is going to do that and if one is going to compete, then one must make the kind of decision that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of the Interior have made in relation to the Public Service. One has to look at the salaries and wages that are paid to teachers and give some attention to that as well. I therefore urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to make sure that he puts in a very strong plea in this regard before the budget. As long as we are struggling to get children to school, even though we have a law providing for compulsory education, so long shall we have to focus on the pre-school child, because that is where the parents and, in particular the single parent, actually want the child to be and where the greatest need exists.

Mr. Chairman, the issue is not that we are perhaps not attaching sufficient importance to nursery school education. In this regard too we must, after all, retain our perspective. It was only recently that the department thought it was not within our means to make provision for nursery school education. That was not only our view; all these years it has also been the attitude of the other education departments. It was only very recently that they started making provision for that, and they have not yet made a great deal of progress. They are only in the initial stages, and they do not have nearly as many problems as we have in this regard. There is no backlog in regard to White children of school-going age for whom they have to make provision. The other education departments have therefore not made much progress; in fact, they have not even been able to overcome their initial difficulties. Therefore we have to be somewhat tolerant and as far as I am concerned there is no difference between my approach and that of the hon. member for Pinelands. I fully agree with him that from an educational point of view of this should be a priority. However, by the time the department has to decide where the money that is available at the moment has to be spent, there may be other considerations that may have a bearing on the determination of priorities. I say it was only the other day that we started to accept the principle, and I am not arguing with the hon. member. At least we realize the value and the necessity of pre-school education now. I wish to state of course—and I have said this before—that where we have classrooms available we shall introduce pre-school or pre-primary classes.

On the part of the educational authorities there is general support for the idea that a child should not be forced into a primary school before he has reached the age of six years; in other words, we shall not be able to incorporate nursery schools in our primary schools as well. We feel that if we give the private sector sufficient incentive they can proceed with the provision of nursery schools while we have our hands full with our own programmes. Then we shall begin with pre-primary classes and start a school here and there for the practical training of nursery school teachers. I do not think it is necessary to argue about these matters, just as it is not necessary to argue the question of whether we should pay the teachers a good salary. Once we start talking about the salaries of teachers, we may as well talk about subsidies to farmers as well, and then we can keep on talking for a long time, because that is a vast subject.

The farmers do not get a cent in subsidies; the consumers get it.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and I do not differ either, but nevertheless everyone has his premise. The hon. member for Pinelands and I may perhaps have the same objectives, but that is a matter we have to discuss in some other place and I think the assurance I have given is sufficient.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It has become necessary to effect some changes to the Marketing Act and, as hon. members will notice, the Bill is largely self-explanatory. It is therefore only necessary for me to comment on its most important aims.

In terms of the present provisions of the Act, members of control boards may only be appointed for fixed terms of three years, and there is no provision either for the appointment of alternative members in those cases where members by reason of illness of other circumstances are prevented from performing their official duties. Provision is accordingly also being made now for the possible appointment of members of control boards for periods shorter than three years and for the appointment of alternate members under certain circumstances. This authorization will facilitate particularly the succession and rotation of members and therefore, in addition, the maintenance of continuity on control boards.

In pursuance of a recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing Act, which reported in 1976, the Act was amended in 1977 to provide for the imposition of general levies on agricultural products, the payment of the proceeds of such levies into a special account and the appropriation of the funds in such special account to defray the expenses of the S.A. Agricultural Union in connection with such of its activities as the Minister may approve. In terms of this provision in the Act approval was also given for funds from the special account to be made available to the S.A. Agricultural Union for the defraying of its organizational and administrative expenses, as well as for defraying the expenses of the specialist and industrial organizations with which the Agricultural Union is affiliated. After a recent investigation into the efficacy of the existing arrangements by the National Marketing Council, it was decided that it would be a more effective arrangement if the Agricultural Union’s organizational and administrative expenses only were financed partly from the special account, and the specialist and industrial organizations affiliated with the Agricultural Union looked to the various control boards for contributions for the partial defraying of their expenses. Provision is being made in the Bill for these proposed arrangements.

At present the Act also provides that a control board may, subject to conditions approved by the Minister, appoint the agents it may deem necessary for the proper performance of its functions. In a strictly legal sense therefore a board may itself decide which of its functions it wishes to have performed by an agent, but the Minister may decide from a policy point of view that it is preferable that duties which a board might want to entrust to an agent should rather be performed by the board itself. Therefore a provision is now being inserted that a board may only appoint an agent to perform such tasks as the Minister may approve.

The Act lays down that a control scheme may provide in a case where a one-channel pool system applies to a product and such pool suffers a loss because a producer produces a quantity of products which differs from the quantity he was by notice, to produce, the board may recover the actual loss from the producer concerned. It may happen, however, that in notices to the board a producer deliberately or negligently specifies incorrect quantities and that, although the board through the redistribution, reconsignment or withholding of products may avert a loss for the pool, it may be necessary to penalize the producer concerned by recovering from him the loss which the pool would probably have suffered. Provision has been made for this in clause 8 at the request of the Citrus Board.

Generally the Bill also contains provisions to bring the existing maximum penalties into line with the present jurisdiction of magistrates. As is customary, discussions were held with organized agriculture and the agricultural control boards in regard to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when we are told that the Government has an agricultural policy for South Africa, then surely the Marketing Act is one of the cornerstones of that policy. It is important, therefore, when we discuss amendments to that Act in this House, as is the case today, that we consider those amendments with great circumspection. The hon. the Minister has explained the provisions of the Bill fairly quickly, and we on this side of the House find nothing wrong with most of them. For example, we agree with clause 1 which provides that in future people invited to take part in a vote need not necessarily be White. We appreciate the fact that the element of racism is thereby removed from the Act. It would appear also that the department accepts the fact that more people other than Whites will in future play a reasonably important role in agriculture as bona fide farmers. That there is a move in that direction is very acceptable to us.

Neither do we have any problem as far as clause 2 is concerned. The penalties and fines that can be imposed are now being brought into line with those imposed by magistrates’ courts.

As the position stands at the moment it can happen that all the members of a control board may be newly appointed after a period of three years. This means that problems may arise as far as continuity of service is concerned. It is now proposed in clause 3 that members may be appointed for shorter periods. We approve of this because that should be the position. Other advantages may also be inherent in this provision. If vehement criticism is levelled at the actions of a control board and if there is a person who because of his special knowledge the Minister wants to appoint to the board for a limited period only, he will be able to do so in terms of this provision. I would ask the hon. the Minister not to lose sight of this possibility when such an occasion arises. Such appointments can, under certain circumstances, render boards more effective. I am not convinced that the appointment of temporary members to a board in terms of section 28(1)(e) is necessary. After all, boards do not consist of one or two members only, members who may be absent from time to time. Boards usually consist of more people.

I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us under what circumstances members could be absent for such long periods that it would be necessary to make temporary appointments. I am inclined to think, under normal circumstances, should some members be absent, that the other members would merely have to work a little harder in order to cope with the work. I know certain arguments can be advanced, for example, when a member who represents certain interests is absent for a long period. There may be an argument in that case. That may also be the argument where he represents regional interests and where he will be absent for a long period.

However, I have a problem in respect of clause 3(b) which provides—

Does that mean that the hon. the Minister can appoint a temporary member as chairman? Or does it mean that the Minister may appoint a temporary member and that he may not act as chairman unless he is elected as such by the remaining members of the board? I think that is something that is not quite clear in this particular clause. In any case, we shall have to be convinced that it is necessary to make temporary appointments. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will elaborate on this.

We have no fault to find with the amendments contained in clauses 4 and 5. In the ordinary course of events, I believe the relevant control board which works in close co-operation with a specialist or industrial undertaking is best able to decide whether or not the funds applied for will be beneficially utilized. We prefer that to the present arrangement. Of course, there is also a limiting factor, namely, that the organizations that apply for funds, have to be members of the S.A. Agricultural Union. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the present position is in connection with an industrial organization like Sampi as against Samso. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister envisages that these two bodies which, as I see the position, are involved in a violent struggle, will in due course merge and pool their resources in furthering the interests of the maize producers. I have in the past asked the hon. the Minister whether he had made any progress in getting these two organizations to merge. If my memory serves me correctly, he said that he was trying but without much success.

Of what interest is that to you?

It is of interest to me because as a member of the Opposition, I represent the interests of the farming community. That gives me the right in this House to ask the hon. the Minister what progress he has made with the merging of these two organizations. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Malmesbury that the hon. the Minister himself has indicated in the past that he would like to see these two organizations working in closer co-operation with one another. I strongly object to that hon. member …

Order!

I am pleased to see that that hon. member is so sensitive about this matter. It seems to me that politics are involved after all, politics which are unpalatable to hon. members opposite. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to address the hon. the Minister. If he is still trying to do so, I would like him to continue in his efforts to bring those two industrial organizations together. I do believe that if that hatchet could be buried, it would be to the benefit of agriculture as a whole and to the maize farmers in particular.

I also want to ask whether under the present set-up it will be possible for Sampi—I am not particularly fond of Sampi—to acquire funds in order to perform the tasks it considers important. I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to that at a later stage.

I have another problem that I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister and that is in connection with clause 5 which provides for the insertion of a proposed new subsection (2A) after section 46D(2) of the principal Act. As I read it, the South African Agricultural Union is expected to submit an estimate of expenditure every three years. If that is the position, I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he reconsider it. From an organizational point of view I think it will be unwise to budget once every three years. What will be much more sensible will be for the S.A. Agricultural Union to frame a budget every year but for three years in advance so that as the major agricultural organization in South Africa it will be able to perform its duties in a more systematic and purposeful manner.

I come now to clause 6. This clause worries me a great deal. At the moment the Act provides that a control board may appoint the agents it considers necessary for the proper performance of its duties, subject to certain regulations made by the hon. the Minister himself. It is now being provided that whenever a control board, duly appointed by the hon. the Minister, wishes to appoint an agent to assist it in the performance of its duties, it must first obtain the approval of the hon. the Minister for such appointment. At least, that is how I interpret it. It seems to me that here we are creating a position very much like that of a man who buys a dog to serve as a watch-dog but then runs out himself to bark when a motor-car passes. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. the Minister has sufficient confidence in control boards to do their work in the ordinary course of events to leave it to the senior members of a board, the experts in their respective fields, to decide whom to appoint as agents to perform certain duties or functions should the board deem that necessary. That right of the board is now being restricted somewhat because in future the Minister himself has to give his approval in every case. That is tantamount to a motion of no-confidence. At least, that is how I interpret it. I should like to have the views of the hon. the Minister on this point. I think it is a bad principle to appoint a control board and then for the Minister to have to exercise control over that control board. We shall definitely move an amendment to rectify this position.

I come now to the last clause which gives me cause for concern, namely, clause 7. The position at the moment is that the board itself can take action against a producer who does not produce in accordance with his arrangement with the board. Should the board suffer any loss as a result of such action, the board can take steps to recoup its losses. But now a completely new concept in law is being introduced in this new amendment because it provides that the board may—

A peculiar situation is being created here. A board may expect a producer to produce a certain product and even though that board may act timeously to acquire the relevant product in some other way so that it does not suffer any loss, it can nevertheless recover from the producer an amount equal to the assessed amount of the loss it did not suffer. I really do not know. I am not a lawyer but I cannot see how any body, individual or organization can recover a loss that it has not suffered. As far as I am concerned, that is a completely new principle in law. It is completely inexplicable to me. I think we are introducing a punitive measure against the producers of South Africa here in order to force them to support the boards, or so it appears to me, one hundred per cent. We on this side of the House are definitely not in favour of this aspect of the amendment. Unless, therefore, we have a satisfactory explanation from the hon. the Minister we shall have to move an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in supporting this amending Bill. I do not want to confine myself to the complete legislation as it has been set out. The hon. the Minister has already told us why it is necessary to effect the amendments. In my opinion they are logical and self-explanatory. There is therefore very little that one can add to what the hon. the Minister has already said.

I should just like to refer to a few small points. In the first place, in my opinion I owe it to the Marketing Council to express to it the appreciation of organized agriculture for the way in which it elucidated and discussed all these possible amendments with organized agriculture. I think this is an illustration of what we talked about last Friday when we said that the Marketing Act, which was introduced in 1937, has been changed and adjusted year after year to comply with the circumstances of the times. This is yet another illustration of that sort of sound development.

During discussion at the Committee Stage I shall move an amendment in respect of clause 4 which is printed in my name on the Order Paper, but I should like to take this opportunity to explain briefly the necessity for this amendment. The amendment reads as follows—

In the first place, it is necessary that the S.A. Agricultural Union which is the mother body of farmers in South Africa and which has knowledge of all the requirements and problems of all branches of the agricultural industry, should be able to consider the requirements of all its affiliates. In paragraphs (c)(i) and (ii), as set out in clause 4, it is very clearly laid down that what is at issue is—

1. (i) a committee or organization established or instituted by the South African Agricultural Union to promote any branch of the agricultural industry;
2. (ii) any organization instituted to promote any branch of the agricultural industry and affiliated with the said Union or a provincial agricultural union.

While on this subject I should just like to point out to the hon. member for Wynberg—and I think this really answers his question in regard to Sampi and Samso—that we are speaking here of affiliates of the S.A. Agricultural Union and nothing else. The legislation lays that down.

To come back to my case, I want to say that these affiliates will now have to act through the S.A. Agricultural Union and with the knowledge and sanction of the S.A. Agricultural Union can now approach the control boards concerned for financial assistance. It is necessary that they should do this with the approval and knowledge of and in conjunction with the S.A. Agricultural Union because it is the S.A. Agricultural Union that can judge the matter and can properly evaluate the project for which they require funds. In the second place, it is just as necessary for the affiliate to act through the S.A. Agricultural Union because it will then be possible for the S.A. Agricultural Union to decide if overlapping is taking place, which in any event will cost a great deal of money. It is necessary that here too the necessary savings should be effected. The body best able to deal with this is the S.A. Agricultural Union. They will have to see to it that unnecessary overlapping does not occur. In the nature of things, the S.A. Agricultural Union is the body which looks after general agricultural matters on behalf of the producer. Therefore I find this absolutely essential and I shall come back to it during the Committee Stage.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I do not have many problems in regard to what the hon. member for Wynberg said. He put a few pertinent questions to the hon. the Minister and I think the hon. the Minister will reply to them quite explicitly.

Regarding the term of office of control boards, they were appointed in the past for periods of three years, whereas they will now be appointed for a period of not longer than three years. They can therefore also be appointed for shorter periods. This is necessary to ensure proper rotation and continuity in respect of control boards. Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House is a Bill which predominantly has the support of the members in these benches. I do not intend to refer to every single clause in the Bill, because I think that in all probability that would be wasting the time of the House. There are, however, one or two queries I would like to raise and I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would perhaps react to these queries when he replies. The first is in connection with clause 3 in terms of which the Minister has the right to appoint a temporary member to a control board when a member of the board is absent for a certain period of time. The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to this matter. My query is the following: Does the Minister act quite alone in an instance of this nature? After all, the control board consists of a number of people and, as this clause provides, one of those people has to be absent. I had in fact thought that it might be a good idea to propose an amendment to this clause suggesting that the Minister should appoint a temporary member after consultation with the control board itself. He has a created control board in existence at this stage and I think it would be a good thing for him to consult with it. We decided ultimately not to move such an amendment because probably the hon. the Minister would consult with them in any event. I certainly hope that he will, and I also hope he will react to what I have suggested in his reply.

I now want to devote my attention to clause 4 of the Bill. I cannot agree with the hon. member, who has just sat down, that this clause has to do only with bodies that are affiliated to the agricultural industry, the agricultural union or a provincial agricultural union. When one looks at a clause of this nature, one must realize that the funds come from a variety of sources. One must also realize that there is a background to this Bill—whether hon. members on the other side of the House like it or not—and that is that there are two organizations that the hon. the Minister does not seem to have been able to get together in any shape or form. I am, of course, referring to Samso and Sampi. When the hon. member for Wynberg was discussing this particular question, an hon. member on the other side of the House interjected to the effect that it would appear that he did not think that the Opposition had any right to discuss affairs of the farmers in any shape or form. I took exception to that particular remark, because I believe that it is our duty to oppose or to support Bills in this House and to speak accordingly. Just as hon. members on the other side of the House have a right to speak on behalf of any section of the population. I believe that hon. members in the Opposition benches have that same right. I further believe that, particularly in the case of farmers, we have to exercise that right on an increasing number of occasions. I think the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will himself agree that the farmers in South Africa today are in need of all the assistance that they can get. The farmers in South Africa today have reached a situation where, in a lot of cases, they are unable to put back into the ground what they have taken out of it. The whole agricultural heritage of the country can, in fact, be affected by such a situation because, after all, what one takes out of the ground in agriculture, one must put back. When one cannot afford to put this back, because one cannot afford the fertilizer to put back into the ground what one has taken out, the whole situation deteriorates. I think the hon. the Minister will himself agree that the situation of farmers in South Africa, in this day and age, needs a tremendous lot of attention and that farmers need a tremendous lot of support. I know the hon. the Deputy Minister is a mohair farmer, and the mohair farmers are doing very well, so he is smiling all the way to the bank. There are certain other classes of farmers that are doing the same thing.

I said Gerrie did better and I think he should come back.

Mr. Speaker, I would rather let the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South answer that one for himself. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for funding to be given to “any organization instituted to promote any branch of the agricultural industry and affiliated with the said Union or a provincial agricultural union”. This in effect means, when looked at in the light of the Samso and Sampi situation, that Samso will be able to get funds and Sampi will not, as I understand the situation, because as far as I am aware, Sampi is not a part of any agricultural union. Therefore, as such, they will be excluded from being able to get any funds from this source.

The sad situation that arises here is that those members of Sampi will have contributed. The funds which are channelled through to Samso can in fact have come, to a degree, from supporters or members of Sampi. The hon. the Minister should bear that in mind, because these are not purely funds raised from Samso members, but funds raised from Sampi as well. This being the case, I wonder if it would not be a reasonable suggestion that the hon. the Minister should tell these people that it would be in the interests of mealie farmers and the mealie industry generally if these two organizations could get together. This is perhaps an occasion on which the hon. the Minister might be able to utilize some sort of a stick and suggest to Samso that he will make sure that no funds are made available to them until such time as they have been able to arrive at an arrangement with Sampi group of farmers. This would, in fact, dangle a carrot in front of the noses of that particular crowd from Samso. They would be able to see that if they and the Sampi members were able to be reasonable they would both gain in terms of the funds they would receive. I should like the hon. the Minister to perhaps react to that suggestion.

The hon. member for Wynberg had a problem with clause 6. I confess that we in these benches did not see this clause as being a problem, and having carefully listened to the hon. member for Wynberg, I still do not really see it as being a problem, because in its original form section 53(1) reads as follows—

So the power rested in the hon. the Minister’s hands anyway in terms of the existing provision. While this scheme could appoint an agent in terms of the existing provision, the approval of the conditions under which he was appointed rested entirely with the Minister. So he could, in fact, turn that particular agent into a completely toothless being who could not do very much or he could grant him a great deal of power. The whole situation was therefore in the Minister’s hands in the first place. I agree that this is a slight extension, but we do not believe it is a serious extension, and therefore we in these benches have no problem with that clause.

The other clause which created a problem for the hon. member for Wynberg deals with the situation in which a person could be fined to make good any damage caused “which the pool suffered or, but for any action by the board, could have suffered”. We concede the need for this particular clause because, like it or not, there are in this life such people as “skelm boere” who try to be just a little sharper than their neighbours in a given situation. I can, for instance, refer to a situation in which there is a control board to which a number of farmers give estimates of what their production is going to be. The control board then looks at the overall situation and says that it can export two-thirds, for which it will obtain a very good price, but cannot export the other third as there is no market for it and that it would therefore have to be sold at a lower price on the local market. Therefore each farmer would be assessed according to how much he has estimated, i.e. that for two-thirds he will receive the high price and for the other third he will not receive the high price. Of course the “skelm boer” immediately over-estimates his crop and does not deliver as much as he said he could deliver. As a result he receives that high export price for virtually his total crop. I believe that that man should pay the penalty, whether or not the pool suffers any damage, because I believe it will serve as a lesson to him. The fact that the pool has not suffered any damage is no thanks to him at all. I can refer to other situations. Other farmers could perhaps have underestimated their crops, and there could have been hail damage to a certain portion of the crop which has altered estimates. I believe it is something that should be frowned on and acted upon. Certainly we in these benches approve that clause.

That is all I wish to say about this Bill for the moment. We shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with a practical measure introduced in this House by a practical Minister of Agriculture who is also a practising farmer and who knows what he is dealing with.

As times and circumstances change, it is essential for us to examine the Marketing Act from time to time.

This Bill before this House today arises out of purely practical problems which have arisen as a result of the implementation of the Marketing Act. That is why it is really inappropriate in the circumstances to use it to try to score political points off someone.

Since we are living in a time of change and name changes, I find it a little strange that we are still referring these days to a Marketing Council and to control boards, whereas in practice today the control boards have to a large extent become marketing boards and the Marketing Council, the control board. The fact of the matter is that since many of our control boards have gone over to the actual marketing of the farmer’s product, in the interests of the farmer—we trust that all control boards will eventually handle the total marketing of the farmer’s product—it is after all the exclusive function of the existing Marketing Council to maintain supervision and a degree of control over the existing control boards. For that reason I believe that our existing control boards, with the appellation of control boards, should rather be called marketing councils and not control boards. This is just by the way.

I do not want to waste too much time. Coming to the objections the hon. member for Wynberg advanced in connection with clause 3(b), I do not know how he read the clause. In the first place the following is after all stated clearly in the proposed paragraph (e)—

There is no obligation on the Minister. The Minister “may” appoint any person to fill his place. Those of us who know something about organized agriculture, how the Department of Agriculture and the Marketing Act function and how the mind of the present hon. Minister of Agriculture works, know that no member of the control board is appointed without consultation. It is obvious that if a replacement must be appointed in the place of a member who is temporarily unable to fulfil his duties, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will do this in consultation too. The hon. member for East London North asked that this should be done in consultation with the members of the control board. I do not believe that that would be practical. I believe the usual practice will be—I do not want to reply on behalf of the hon. the Minister—that the interest group consulted when the original person was appointed, in whose place another person now has to be appointed, will most probably be consulted again.

As far as clause 6 is concerned, I agree with the hon. member for East London North. I really cannot understand the objection of the spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. member for Wynberg, to this small extension. The hon. member implied that by means of this amendment, the hon. the Minister was moving a motion of no-confidence in the control boards that he himself created, but all control boards have always operated and carried out their functions under the supervision and control of the Marketing Council and ultimately the Minister of Agriculture. I honestly believe that there is no reflection on our control boards and that the measure is merely a practical one.

Then the hon. member for Wynberg feels particularly strongly about clause 7 of the Bill—he maintains that he sees this provision as a penal measure which the Minister can use to compel producers to market by means of a control board. I think this is a scandalous accusation. However, what are the facts? This proposed measure may be applied only where a one-channel marketing scheme already exists, where one has a pool scheme in terms of such a one-channel marketing scheme and where provision has been made that the producers of that particular product—this is the case in any event, as a result of the pool scheme and the one-channel marketing scheme—have to market their product by means of the control boards. In any event they are obliged to give the control boards proper notice of the extent of the product they want to deliver. The proposed measure merely aims at their being called to order.

I concede that this is not purely a compensatory measure. In any event, it was not one as the Act was worded before, either. If we examine how the Act read formerly, before the hon. the Minister came forward with a proposed amendment, we do see after all that it read that an amount could be recovered for the benefit of the pool from any person guilty of neglecting to do this. The amount is assessed by the board. In other words, the Act, as it appears on the Statute Book, has never contained a provision that the actual loss suffered has to be proved to the nearest cent. That member or producer who failed to do his duty could be assessed for an estimated amount of compensation. This is absolutely essential, and this legislation was requested, as the hon. the Minister has already said in his Second Reading speech, by the Citrus Board which has been experiencing exceptional problems in this regard.

If I may help the hon. member for Wynberg to understand this, I want to say that this measure is not aimed at making good losses suffered by the board, but is in the interests of the pool, that is in practice the property of the producers of this particular product. Theoretically it may be the property of the board, but in essence it is the property of co-producers. Consequently I cannot advocate strongly enough that, if there are producers who do not want to play the game, they should be called to order in the interests of the agricultural industry of South Africa.

With regard to the other matter raised by the hon. member concerning clauses 4 and 5, which concern the levies—the hon. member for East London North also had his reservations—I want to say that I find it somewhat strange, because the hon. member ought to know that the Wentzel Commission, which carried out an investigation into this whole matter, made a unanimous recommendation. All parties were in favour of this arrangement. That is why I find it somewhat strange that the hon. member of that party now comes forward with reservations. The fact is that we are aware—and I do not want to say more than this—of the tremendous problems that arise for agriculture and that have been encountered in all countries of the world where the producers of a product disagree, because they have been organized into different organizations. I merely want to make an appeal, in the interests of the farmers of South Africa, that if humanly possible—and it is possible—they must settle their mutual disputes and unite in one single organization which can act on behalf of all of them, in the interests of the producers of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few points on which I just want to elaborate a little. Hon. members did not say much about clauses 1 and 2 and I want to tell them that we thank them for supporting the Second Reading in principle. There are only a few clauses about which they have objections.

In respect of clause 3, I believe the amendment is correct, but in clause 3(a) there is one point I could possibly explain. The principle contained in it is that members of control boards must not all retire at the same time. The Minister now has the authority to make certain members’ terms shorter than three years. As a person of 68 years or older cannot be appointed to a board, the original provision in the Act meant that a person who reaches the age of 70 years, has to retire from a board. It could just be that where people may now be appointed for a term shorter than three years, the term of a competent person whose services are required by a board can elapse before he has reached the age of 70 years. Such a person cannot be retained as a member of a board. I do not want to move an amendment in this regard, but I merely want to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to this.

A few points were raised in respect of clause 3(b). The first concerns the appointment of temporary members. The hon. member for Wynberg pointed out the importance of being able to appoint temporary members. Such a person perhaps represents an interest group or a certain area. However, I think there is another aspect which should also be noted. Control boards sometimes have important meetings where persons have to be present to represent certain interest groups. The constitution of control boards is such that although a variety of producers is represented on it, consumers are only represented by a single member. Owing to illness or some other reason it could happen that that specific member cannot be present for a series of important meetings. In order to serve the industry well, it is in that case in the interests of that industry that the Minister should have the authority to appoint a person to that board on a temporary basis. I think it is only right that this concession is being made. The possibility has also been raised that the Minister may appoint such a person as chairman of a board, and to prohibit this, would really be wrong. I think I understood the hon. member correctly. I think the spirit of the provision is that the Minister obtains the right to appoint a member to a control board, but that the right to elect a chairman rests with the board itself. The board members elect a chairman on the basis of their own considerations. I think this is what specific provision is being made for in this clause, and consequently we agree with it.

In respect of clauses 4 and 5 the hon. member mentioned dissension within the agricultural industry. However, there are certain principles of which we must take cognizance. The first principle is that it is not the Government’s task to tell the farmers what to do and how they should organize themselves. However, the Government has the right to recognize one organization as the official organization and that the farmers have to settle their disputes among themselves. Once the farmers have solved their problems among themselves and are united in one organization, it is the Government’s task to take cognizance of that organization and to assist it wherever possible.

I think it could rightly be said that the hon. the Minister is the person who, on various occasions, has gone out of his way to try to bring about peace within the maize industry. The maize industry as a whole ought to be grateful to him for that. For various reasons, however, he has been unsuccessful. I believe that at this stage it is not the hon. the Minister’s task to bring about peace in the maize industry. The maize farmers themselves must do so. However, the hon. the Minister must make one thing very clear to the farmers, i.e. that he recognizes the S.A. Agricultural Union as the organization which speaks on behalf of all the farmers.

The hon. member for East London North said that we took money from all the farmers and financed only one organization with it. The standpoint he adopted is quite correct, but it is equally true that if we accept the first principle I put forward, that single organization with the representations they make and what they achieve is to the benefit of everyone. That is why it is only right that everyone pays for the benefits obtained by that organization on their behalf and not that only a few should pay for them.

What is the standpoint of members of Sampi concerning the standpoint the hon. member has just stated, viz. that Samso acts to everyone’s benefit, whereas Sampi does not?

You should have raised this matter when the report was discussed in Parliament.

That question is easy to reply to. I am frank when I say that Sampi is not in favour of money being deducted with which they are not financed. However, Sampi will be the first to admit that if Samso promotes the interests of the maize industry, all the farmers benefit by it. After all, this is fundamentally correct. On the basis of this I believe that clauses 4 and 5, seen as a whole, deal with financing, and the method of financing, for purposes of administration and in the general interest of all the farmers concerned with the S.A. Agricultural Union, and of the committee system of the S.A.A.V. and its specialist organizations. This must be done in a specific way and the Minister must lay down specific guidelines on how it should be done, to the benefit of the industry as a whole.

At this stage I do not want to say too much about the other clauses. There does not seem to be much dissension about them. In any event other hon. members have already discussed them.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the two Opposition parties for supporting this legislation. The hon. member for Wynberg said at the outset:“If it could only be said that the Government has an agricultural policy.” This merely leaves one with a bitter taste.

I meant nothing by it.

I should like to tell the hon. member that it has always been their story that we ostensibly do not have an agricultural policy. This is now almost the thirteenth time that I am going to invite him to give me an agricultural policy, but then he must also apply it for me, one that will work under the conditions prevailing now in Namaqualand, Bushmanland, Calvinia and in all the north-western parts of this country. He must be able to apply his policy there, as against other areas where the same circumstances do not prevail. He will not be able to work out an agricultural policy for me for this year for half of the Bothaville district, or for Schweizer-Reneke or Hopetown. Then I shall take him to the North Eastern Free State and then to the Eastern Transvaal. This is a completely different kettle of fish. Then he must give me an agricultural policy.

I shall leave it at that. I do not want to quarrel, but want to remain friendly so that I shall have the Opposition’s support in all the stages.

The hon. member asked a few reasonable questions, most of which have already been answered by hon. members on this side. In connection with the period for which members are appointed, does the hon. member understand that according to the new arrangement, everyone retires on the same date and that we shall then find that there will be no continuity, and consequently I may appoint persons for a shorter period?

The hon. members for Wynberg and East London North have a problem with the board member whom I appoint for a short period in the absence of someone else. Actually this does not apply to producer members. The hon. member should bear in mind that we first reduced the number of the control board. We had control boards with a membership of 24. The maximum that may now serve on a board is 13, and this includes producers, consumers and interest groups. I shall take the Wheat Board as an example. There is one bakers’ representative or millers’ representative on the Wheat Board, over and above the consumers and the other representatives. If the bakers’ representative on the Wheat Board becomes ill, and his doctor says that he will be inactive for six months, his own association—after all, I do not know who the person is who has to represent the bakers—proposes a person and asks that he be appointed until the person who is ill becomes well. To me this is a very simple matter. This is not a problem to me.

The hon. member asked about the question of the financing of Sampi as opposed to Samso. This has already been discussed. To me it will be a wonderful day when these two groups come together. As regards the hon. member for the Maize Board over there, I want to … [Interjections.] … or rather the hon. member for Carletonville. Firstly I just want to say that I do not appoint the chairman of a board. The farmers themselves elect him. The Minister has no say in the appointment of a chairman. There the hon. member for Carletonville is quite correct. We do not shout at the members of Sampi. Nor does he shout at them. They are, after all, all still fellow producers and it will be a happy day for me when these two organizations can come under one umbrella. However, I cannot deviate from a policy which has been applied consistently since 1910—or rather make it 1920, if there was not yet an agricultural union in 1910. However, when those hon. members opposite had the privilege of governing for a short while, it was decided even at that stage that the S.A. Agricultural Union was the only mouthpiece to whom the Government would listen. However much I want unity, I can listen only to the body that advises me. That is the S.A. Agricultural Union and bodies affiliated to it. If Sampi affiliates with the S.A. Agricultural Union, it will be entitled to financing on the same basis as Samso. However, until that day comes, the status quo remains.

The hon. member wanted to know why the fund should be fixed for a period of three years. This is at the request of the S.A. Agricultural Union. They want to plan at least three years ahead. This can be reviewed on an annual basis, but the S.A. Agricultural Union would like to have an idea of the basis on which it ought to be done. For that reason we decided on a period of three years. In this way we can enable the S.A. Agricultural Union to decide according to what guidelines it should carry out its planning. That, then, is why it is stipulated as such in the clause in question.

With regard to clause 6, the hon. member for Wynberg wanted us not to interfere with the control board’s appointment of its own agents. I can understand why the hon. member made such a request. Of course, he does not know how the matter works in practice. However, I do not take it amiss of him. For instance, we come to an agreement with a specific control board on the nature of its functions. For example, it must appoint agents for overseas sales. This is the instruction to the control board concerned. Now that same control board has perhaps received levies from its producers. As an example I could just point out that the Banana Board has collected funds and built central ripening depots at places such as Hermanstad and Wadeville at a cost of R2,5 million. Now the board could want to alienate that asset by hiring it to an agent. Then we could refuse and say that the depot was constructed by money collected by producers and that it cannot therefore be alienated to a co-operative or to anyone else. It must remain in the possession of the board. It is merely to make provision for that that we have inserted this clause in the Bill. It serves to protect the producers.

The hon. member for East London North also asked a question in connection with clause 7, which contains provisions relating to the recovery of money in respect of a pool. This provision was inserted in the Bill at the request of the Citrus Board, as they are experiencing a problem in this regard. For example, in his statement a farmer states that he is going to deliver a certain quantity of citrus fruit for export and a certain quantity for the domestic trade. Meanwhile he may note that the overseas price is extremely high. Now he packs more citrus fruit for export than he indicated in his statement. On the other hand it could perhaps happen that he packs much more for domestic trade as a result of freighting problems. Meanwhile the Citrus Control Board reserves freight space and consequently has to pay for dead freight. The hon. member for Barberton stated this very clearly. This is a pool scheme, a one channel pool scheme. Every citrus producer shares in this pool. Now one surely cannot expect the approximately 4 000 members of the pool to pay for the one producer who furnished a faulty statement. However, it is stated clearly that this provision is applicable only to producers who deliberately furnish faulty information in their statements. It is also done as a result of a proposal emanating from the Citrus Industry and with a view to bringing about an orderly situation. The hon. members should, of course, also bear in mind that such a pool or scheme must also operate through the Marketing Council, a council which acts in an advisory capacity to the Minister. The hon. member for Heilbron gave notice of an amendment he wants to move. He also replied to some of the questions asked. As president of the Free State Agricultural Union he knows what he is talking about, of course.

†I have already dealt with the problem mentioned by the hon. member for East London North. He said he had a problem with the stipulation concerning a temporary member. This merely applies in connection with sectional groups such as the Bakers’ Guild. He also referred to Sampi and Samso and asked whether I could not withhold the money from Samso until the organizations decided to come together. If they cannot come together because of fighting ad infinitum, we cannot have a good organization amongst the farmers. In my opinion that is a bad thing.

That would be a lovely wedding!

Oh, yes. I am not a drinker, but that day I shall get drunk. [Interjections.] The hon. member for East London North spoke very fluent English, but as soon as he wanted to refer to “skelm boere” he used an Afrikaans term. Are there not English-speaking “skelms” too?

Of course! There are a few of them on your side.

I only want to be reasonable. I never play politics, but while the hon. member was speaking English, why did he not refer to “dishonest” farmers?

*I merely want to rectify the matter to some extent.

“Dishonest” does not mean “skelm”.

I have already referred to the hon. member for Barberton, a person who has served on the Marketing Act Commission. He knows all these things. There is also something I want to tell the hon. member for Carletonville. If we adopt this standpoint towards fellow farmers—even though they are members of Sampi—and do not shout at them, I believe that we shall eventually have them all in our kraal.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 4:

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

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I pointed out that it would be inadequate for the S.A. Agricultural Union to budget for its activities only once in three years. The hon. the Minister explained that it was necessary that they should be able to plan over a longer period than merely one year so that they could implement a systematic plan. However, my point is not that they should not budget over a long period. I said they should indeed budget over a long period, but that a budget should be prepared every year. In practice it is unacceptable, after all, that in 1980 one should submit a budget for 1980, 1981 and 1982, that is to say for three years, and then only come forward with a further budget at the beginning of 1983. That is not long-term planning then, for at the beginning of 1983 one has to start planning from scratch. In other words, I am in favour of long-term planning, but the hon. the Minister must appreciate that the S.A. Agricultural Union should plan every year for the ensuing period. If it is a period of three years that is required, then that is all very well. They cannot plan once every three years as the Bill reads at present. It says here—

for a period of three years. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister in all seriousness that he should consider changing the Bill in such a way that every year they should budget for the ensuing three years.

Mr. Chairman, there is just one little point which I could perhaps point out to the hon. member for Wynberg. If there had to be a budget for a different amount every year, it would mean of course that control boards would be entitled to impose different levies every year. They could impose a levy in one year and wish to increase that in the two subsequent years. That may be the case. However, if one were to plan for three years ahead, the levy would remain static for a few years and would not be changed regularly. It would create more contentment among the farmers if they knew that there could not be a drastic increase. It could also have an effect on the current consumer prices. The levies imposed have an effect on both. The planning can take place on an annual basis, but in respect of the levy there has to be planning for a longer period so that it will not be changed at frequent intervals.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carletonville is quite correct. I just want to add something. Suppose an amount of R1 million per annum were to be collected from the various control boards; every commodity contributes its fraction of a cent. Hon. members must bear in mind that the agricultural turnover amounts to R4 450 million. Suppose one were to require a million rands for this purpose. Then that is only a small amount. It is administered by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. The Agricultural Union may need R800 000 of the million rand that has been collected. The levy on the product which we impose on the producer, fluctuates from one year to another. The Agricultural Union wants a determination in advance. They have requested that they should be given a guideline for a period of three years. For that reason subsection (2A) includes the following provision—

Or perhaps decrease the amount.

We can decrease it.

Let us insert that there. It may happen that it is decreased.

The amount can also be increased; it can also remain as it is. Can I tell the Agricultural Union that the hon. member proposes that we should insert the words “or decrease”?

That the Minister could possibly decrease it, yes.

That will be the day! After all, everything is becoming more expensive. [Interjections.] I can discuss it with them and if it is necessary I can change it in the Other Place. I can assure the hon. member that they are going to say: “No, but decrease…”

Well, the price of cheese went down.

I should like to accommodate and satisfy the hon. member. If he likes, we can change it in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, let me discuss this matter further. With this new system of funding the supposition is that the organizations in the industry should obtain the funds for their specific pursuits directly from the control boards. That would of course mean, or so one would expect at any rate, that savings should be effected in this way. If we are successful in the implementation of our policy, it could happen—and we have to strive for that—that levies might be decreased. With the more systematic research that is being undertaken and the better planned utilization of funds in the long term, it may well happen that the funds that would be required, would be smaller. Therefore one must remain optimistic. It may well happen that it will become possible to decrease certain levies. I think one should take that possibility into account.

Mr. Chairman, this is a fund in connection s with which the farmers themselves decide on the amount that has to be voted for that purpose. The S.A. Agricultural Union has to prepare a budget for three consecutive years. However, after a year the Agricultural Union could state that a certain specialist organization did not require R100 000 for the specific year, but only R80 000. It is obvious that I shall not compel them to spend the entire I amount of R100 000. In practice, it simply does not work that way. If they were to approach me and say they wanted the amount to be decreased, I should do so. In order to please the hon. member, I shall insert the change so that the amount may also be reduced. I do not think this would be necessary in practice, since the Agricultural Union would itself make such a request if it were necessary. Even though this is not contained in the legislation, they could approach me themselves and ask for less. I should then accede to the request and the money that would not be required, would then be reserved for the specific industry. We can save time by effecting the amendment in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps it will assist both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Wynberg if one were only to alter one word, and that is to substitute the word “increase” by the word “alter”. It would then read; “and after consultation with the said marketing council alter in respect of a particular year the amount so determined.” In the Afrikaans text the word “verhoog” can be substituted by the word “wysig” so that it would read; “ná oorleg met genoemde bemarkingsraad die aldus bepaalde bedrag ten opsigte van ’n bepaalde jaar kan wysig”. The whole situation can be resolved by merely changing one word.

That is not a bad idea.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading I made the point that under this provision, the hon. the Minister would, should the clause be agreed to as it stands, obtain additional powers to exercise control over decisions which up to now the control boards could take themselves. I was under the impression that we were moving in the direction of decentralization rather than centralization. I was also under the impression that the people whom the hon. the Minister appoints from a list of persons submitted to him by the various interest groups would be knowledgeable, senior and responsible people as well as people who would act in the interests of the producer as well as the consumer, because the consumer is also represented there. Now I find it strange to see that it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to have these additional powers. I know that it is only a small additional power to decide on which outside agents the board should use. The hon. the Minister quoted an example. I take it that the decision which the hon. the Minister has taken to prohibit the board from letting or selling packing-sheds was, under the circumstances, the correct decision. I do not have the information at my disposal. Surely those board members are also in a strong position to decide what is right or wrong or what is to the benefit of their own producer groups, because they specialize and because they can devote all their time to the product, the distribution of the product and, in this case, the ripening of the product? Surely they are also in a very good and strong position to decide which agents they will use from time to time? I want to try and prevent a situation where the private sector—and the private sector can be used as agents—should use the argument that the control board with whom they have been doing business over a period of time, had been prepared to use them but that the hon. Minister, for other reasons which they do not understand, decided not to use the agencies. I think this places an unnecessary responsibility on the hon. the Minister. Surely the hon. the Minister cannot look at the activities of each of the 23 control boards in order to approve or condemn the decisions which they want to take. As the Act reads at present, this is acceptable to me, but I really cannot see why the hon. the Minister should have additional powers to control the control board further. Surely we are dealing here with experts, people with experience.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite correct. We are very much in favour of appointing agents from the private sector. When I refer to the private sector, I include co-operatives, traders and private companies. We have, for instance, made an arrangement with the Maize Board that the sale of maize abroad be handled by agents on a tender basis, except in specific countries that wish to buy maize directly. It has always been our standpoint to make use of private initiative. I have tried to explain the matter to the hon. member. This board consists of experts and decides that an activity should be transferred to a private company of which four of the directors are members of the board. I merely refer to this. I am sure it will work extremely well to eliminate some of the problems being experienced by the Maize Board. The Marketing Board and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing are my advisers.

I want to say that tomorrow something might happen to these four experts who are extremely well suited to today’s circumstances. In that case one will no longer enjoy their services. In the meantime the farmers’ investment of R3,5 million must be protected. We are changing the Act so that it can remain under the jurisdiction of the control board. It is not that I mistrust these people, but they can disappear. The hon. member said that I wanted to approve the appointment of the agents of 21 boards. We are dealing with a scheme. The control board appoints agents to fulfil certain functions, for instance, sales. It should be remembered that the Government has decided that the processing of products is not a function of a control board. There is, however, a commodity such as chicory. It could happen that no one is prepared to dry the root. Therefore this is an activity which has to be undertaken by a control board. Another commodity to which I can refer, is rooibos tea, the historical development of which has been such that the control board in Clanwilliam has taken the processing upon itself. The third commodity to which I can refer in this regard, is bananas. It is only in respect of these commodities that one could experience this type of problem. The standpoint of other control boards is, however, that they are not the processors of products. The Wheat Board has not been authorized to build a bakery; that is the work of the private entrepreneur. This does not cause me any difficulties.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will remember that this is the clause to which I actually have no objections. I said that I thought that it was a good clause, because it caught up with the “skelm boer”.

[Inaudible.]

I must admit that I take it quite a little bit amiss that the hon. the Minister should have thought that because I mention the Afrikaans term “skelm boer” in an English speech, I was implying that there were no dishonest English farmers. I am sure the hon. the Minister cannot really believe that I had any such intention. I do not believe there is a reasonably acceptable translation for “skelm” in English. Perhaps I understand it incorrectly, but to me a “skelm” is a bit of a rogue, although rather a likeable one. It implies a degree of acceptance. For instance, if somebody objects to a joke made by one of his Ministers, then he is perhaps acting in a bit of a “skelm” way and has to suffer the penalties for the “skelm” way in which he acted. I genuinely hope the hon. the Minister did not think that what I said was intended in any shape or form to offend anybody. I am sorry that that sort of note should have been introduced into this debate.

Mr. Chairman, I shall regard it as a misunderstanding. I now understand the whole matter and am satisfied. The hon. member meant by “skelm boer” a “wide-awake” farmer. That is what he meant.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put forward this party’s standpoint under clause 7 once again. I do not know of any situation in which damages which are not really damages, can be recovered from an individual. Each person who lays a claim for damages against another person, must prove that those damages have already been suffered and also that he tried to avoid the damages which he suffered. If my employer should fire me unjustifiably, I cannot sit at home for a year and then, after a year, claim 12 months’ salary if I cannot prove that I tried to obtain employment during those 12 months and in so doing tried to lessen the damage. To put it differently. If someone should collide with my car, for instance on the road between Klapmuts and Kraaifontein, and the car is damaged to such an extent that it cannot travel any further, and it is the other person’s fault, I cannot leave the car there for six months and then put in a claim because the wheels have in the meantime been removed and the body taken away. By leaving the car there, I did not try to limit the damage as far as possible. Surely I have an obligation to try and limit the damages as far as possible. Other hon. members in this House would perhaps be able to advance stronger arguments than I can. In this case the board, through its actions, has succeeded in preventing the pool from suffering damages. They sold the oranges at a different place or made arrangements with the purchaser to exempt them in this particular case from the obligation to deliver, or whatever the case may be. By acting in such a manner, no real damages have been suffered by any body, including the pool and the board. Now, however, we are passing legislation to recover an amount for the benefit of the pool from the producer who—I concede—failed, deliberately, through neglect, to deliver as he should have, and these are damages which have not been proved and cannot be proved because it is stated here that the damages have been rectified. In these circumstances I really want to ask the hon. the Minister to look at this clause, for we dare not allow that this be approved by the House. If we cannot come to an arrangement, I must tell the hon. the Minister that we will not support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, in order to understand this clause properly, one must understand how the Citrus Board markets citrus products. The Citrus Board has a very sophisticated method of marketing, and the farmers are asked to make estimates in order to comply with this very carefully worked-out method. The farmers then make estimates and the marketing of the fruit is planned accordingly. If the farmer discovers that he cannot produce according to his estimate, he is given a very fair chance, until the very last moment, until a mere 14 days before the final date for shipping the fruit, to amend his estimate. Ocean freight is extremely expensive at the moment. It costs R1,60 to ship one case of citrus fruit abroad. Therefore it is very necessary to keep as closely as possible to such estimates. All the board is doing now, is simply asking to be allowed to recover any damages that it may suffer, for instance in drawing up its marketing plans abroad or in hiring cold storage here and abroad, from those farmers who did not amend their estimates in good time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the hon. member for Humansdorp explained this specific case concerning apples so well. However, there is another point that I should like to raise. Every so often the Opposition criticizes the “mismanagement by boards”.

Why did you say that in English?

I simply want to use the specific words that are used so often.

The boards are being accused of not exercising proper management and control over the products. However, we know that any marketing mechanism works in such a way that if one does not know what supplies are available, one cannot plan one’s selling technique properly. This is the principle at issue here. This clause seeks to create a mechanism that a control board can utilize for the proper control and administration of a product.

Two principles are being incorporated here. The first principle is that if it has done so and damages are in fact suffered, the board may calculate a fine in proportion to the damage that was suffered. In other words, the board suffered damage because it could not make proper plans to the advantage of the industry, due to incorrect information. This is the first principle that is involved. The second principle involved, is that if the amount that may be recovered from the individual could serve as a deterrent, it might result in the board obtaining more accurate information on the production potential, of what has to be exported at a later stage, for which one can devise plans for freight space, and possibly even for prices and buyers. Those who are opposed to the principle of proper planning, disciplinary measures or an amount that can be claimed, are actually promoting poor management in the control board system. There is no other way in which proper control can be exercised over the supply position on the one hand and the planning of sales on the other.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Humansdorp is a citrus farmer, a member of the Citrus Exchange and a member of the Citrus Board as well. Say there are 100 farmers at Humansdorp who deliver citrus fruit to a pool. Now say one of those 100 members furnishes incorrect information in connection with his estimate. The hon. member pointed out to the hon. member for Wynberg that a farmer’s harvest can be damaged by hail two weeks before harvesting time, and that he can still request at once, by telegram, that his estimate be changed. According to a pool scheme, the participants are given an advance, and when the product has been sold, they receive their final payment when the pool is closed. The pool can now decide to penalize a certain farmer because he knowingly furnished an incorrect estimate. Such a farmer may perhaps have a private packing shed and did not export his products when the domestic market was high. He then entered the domestic market and in doing so caused prices to be adversely effected. Surely the proposed new section 66(3)(c) provides expressly “where the board considers it equitable” and further on that an amount may be recovered which is “approximately equal to the amount of any loss which the pool suffered or, but for any action by the board, could have suffered”. In practice one cannot define precisely how the type of compensation should be calculated. All our pool schemes, however, work in this way. The farmers who are members of control boards asked for this provision, as did the S.A. Agricultural Union. Why do hon. members on the opposite side not come up with a suggestion as to how damages can be recovered from a farmer who belongs to a pool and who causes a loss to the other members of that pool? Let them give me a solution.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to compensation being claimed for damage that has in fact been suffered. Let us take the example of the ship that is not fully loaded. In a case like this it can be proved that damage was suffered and the damage can then be recovered. It can be proved that the space was paid for and that the seller suffered damage as a result and that the profits were less. It can be proved in court that a certain amount of money was lost in consequence. I have no problem with a case like this. However, mention is made in the provision of an amount where the pool suffered—“or but for any action by the board, could have suffered”—a loss. It may happen that a control board succeeds in selling the products and that the pool did not suffer any damages. However, in spite of that, according to the wording of the clause, the offender can still be penalized by recovering an amount from him that is an estimate of the amount the board could have lost. How is one going to prove in court what amount a pool could have lost if it did not in fact lose that amount? No one has lost money. This is a completely erroneous principle, and we cannot allow a legal concept of this kind to be included in legislation. Where will this end? People could be punished for all sorts of other reasons. I accept that this measure will only have to be applied to people who were negligent or who purposely tried to mislead the pool. I also accept that a farmer would be negligent if he did not inform the pool in good time in some way or other that his harvest had been damaged due to hail or some other reason. However, I cannot understand how we can wish to recover damages which have not in actual fact been suffered. I should not like to defend a case like this in court. We cannot support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain something to the hon. member for Wynberg, and I would be grateful if he would listen.

He has used as an example the situation where a particular farmer says that he will make a certain amount of fruit available for export As a result of his non-delivery, there is space left in the ship. It is a calculable amount of space. X number of cartons of citrus have not been delivered. It is therefore possible to quantify the damage actually suffered by the pool. Because it has not been delivered, other farmers are phoned and asked whether they can deliver X quantity of oranges quickly. They send there pickers out, pick it that night and bring the fruit in, it is placed on the ship and the ship departs. In this case no damage has been suffered by the pool. Through acting quickly, and through being able to get somebody to supply that citrus, the board has filled that shipping space.

However, one is able to quantify the amount of damage that might have been suffered, and in terms of the amendment in this Bill, it will be possible to charge the man who over-estimated. He can be accused of potentially costing the pool X amount of money. He is therefore asked to compensate for it. I think that is a fairly clear example.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London North has really helped me now. I think the hon. member for Wynberg will understand it now. We have explained it in Afrikaans as well as English now. The hon. member asks how one can say “assessed” or “approximately equal” in a law. What worries him, is how one is going to say in court “the damage was approximately equal to this”. One must be able to say exactly what the damage was.

But say the pool makes so many pockets of oranges available at 80 cents per pocket. However, a member now sends oranges and forces the price down to 70 cents a pocket. Surely we can now determine that so many pockets earned 10 cents less. However, one cannot prove it to the letter because how can one tell the market superintendent that we could have received 72 cents if this buyer or that one had arrived on the specific day. One does not have a leg to stand on. That is why we must have the estimate after the board has consulted on it. This is in the interest of most of the producers. It is only the few individuals who give wrong estimates. I cannot explain it any further.

Mr. Chairman, I want to try to explain what my problem is. As far as I am aware, according to the law one cannot recover damages from any individual, organizations or corporate body which have not been suffered. It cannot be done. Thus far in South Africa it has not been part of our system. This is a totally new concept which we are introducing here today, and we cannot allow it. Should we accept this new concept whereby one can recover damages not suffered, it could also be applied in other spheres. I accept that where a board or pool did suffer damage, recovering such damages would be justified. They want to sell eggs and contract to deliver the eggs, but X number of cases were not made available. They can therefore prove that a smaller profit was made on or less money was received for the consignment. I have no problem with that.

However, the board, because they are “live-wires” appointed by the hon. the Minister, managed to avoid having to suffer any damage. How on earth can they still claim for damages which they would have suffered if they had not suffered that damage at all? I explained earlier that should I be dismissed from my job and I go and sit at home for 12 months I cannot claim unemployment benefits for those 12 months unless I can prove that I could not obtain employment. That is, of course, if I were illegally or wrongfully dismissed. The same applies in the case of a motor vehicle. It is incumbent on the one suffering the damage to try to minimize that damage. If he succeeds in avoiding the damage completely, he has no claim. That is the attitude that the PFP is adopting here today. We cannot agree with this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Wynberg has not read this clause correctly. He says one cannot recover damage that one has not suffered.

I said one can.

But that is the main reason why this clause is being introduced into the Bill. Damage is suffered as a result of the activities of one member of a pool. The other members of the pool seek to recover the damage they have suffered through the actions of this single member. It is so simple. I quote—

The amount is prescribed in the scheme. The Marketing Council, the control board, the department, whoever it may be, decides on the price per bag or per case of oranges in the event of a member of the pool failing to co-operate in his crop estimates, etc. There are so many things he can do that are wrong.

*Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that was the last opportunity the hon. member for Wynberg had to speak. [Interjections.]

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The system of certification according to which our best wines are presently classified and graded according to origin, purity of cultivar and vintage, was introduced in terms of legislation passed by this House during 1972. It is based on the traditional European systems, with certain adjustments to comply with local circumstances. It has appeared in practice that certain amendments to the Act are required in order to facilitate the application of the system of certification. The Bill which is being submitted to the House today provides for such adjustments.

†The Act already provides for regulations to control the production and labelling of liquor. Certain minor adjustments to these provisions are required so that technological changes can be accommodated in the regulations.

It was never the intention that all liquor should be subject to the provisions of the Act. Doubt has recently arisen regarding the position of certain wines with a low alcohol content. Liquor with an alcohol content of less than 2% is at present excluded from the provisions of the Liquor Act and it is therefore proposed that a corresponding exemption be provided in this Act.

The maximum penalties and imprisonment for offences provided for in the Act at present are not in relation to the economic benefits which could be derived by contravening the Act and do therefore not serve as a deterrent. Drastic increases of the maximum penalties and imprisonment are therefore provided in keeping with other wine producing countries for corresponding offences.

*This Bill was drafted in close co-operation with organized agriculture and the liquor trade. Its chief principle is that our best wines of origin should be identified and appreciated as such.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill. We have also made enquiries in the industry, and it is clear that the legislation meets with the approval of everyone in the industry, certainly everyone with whom I had discussions. It is true, too, that the wine industry in South Africa is becoming more and more important today, that the production of good or high-quality wines should be encouraged and that estate wines are playing a very important part, both inside South Africa and on the export market. Therefore legislation has to be passed which will ensure that certain standards are maintained and that the public may be certain that the label accurately reflects the contents of the bottle. We have no objection to this Bill and we support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is before us is of a fairly technical nature, so hon. members in the House who do not have an interest in agriculture will probably not be very interested in it. Therefore, I suppose one should not take up too much time of the House. However, those who are not interested in the production of wine may perhaps be interested in drinking it. Therefore we may say a few words about this Bill, which contains a number of interesting points. It is quite difficult to follow this Bill and to relate it to the Act that is applicable at the moment, for since 1957, when the legislation was put on the Statute Book for the first time, it has been amended several times, in 1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974 and again in 1976. Now it is being amended again. Although the amendments that are being proposed now may not be of very wide consequence, they are nevertheless interesting.

The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that a wine with an alcohol content of less than 2% is being exempted from the provisions of this legislation. One may well wonder how a wine could be produced with an alcohol content of less than 2%. [Interjections.] The hon. member may well ask that One is not allowed to add water, because that is against the law. Some people add Coke to their brandy to improve the brandy, but in doing so they are simply spoiling the brandy.

It improves the Coke.

There is a way in which this can be done, and that is by stopping the process of fermentation at a very early stage. Before 3,5% of the sugar has been converted into alcohol, therefore, the process of fermentation is stopped and then one gets a beverage—I cannot call it a wine—with an alcohol content of less than 2%. However, it is not wine and will certainly be too sweet to be drunk as wine. If there is such a beverage with an alcohol content of less than 2%, therefore, it should not fall under this legislation.

In clause 6 and 7, provision is made for the Minister or the Wine and Spirit Board to delegate certain powers to certain bodies or persons. After this whole system of estate wines, wines of origin, cultivar wines and vintage wines came into operation, the work of the Wine and Spirit Board increased considerably, so that it became necessary to enable them to appoint persons or bodies to assist them in performing their task. But this whole system of wines of origin, estate wines, cultivar wines and vintage wines is such a fine one that we cannot allow it to be undermined through lack of time on the part of the Wine and Spirit Board. In fact, this whole system we have developed here is such a fine one that other wine-producing countries are actually jealous of the system we have developed here. Therefore, we must guard against allowing it to be undermined through lack of time on the part of the bodies concerned. In clause 8, therefore, legislative authority is given to this system, which has hitherto been arranged by regulation.

Mr. Speaker, in clause 10 we have a very interesting insertion into or amendment of the principal Act, i.e. the removal from the Act of the concept of degrees proof. The concept of degrees proof to indicate the alcohol content dates from the days of the old system, before we introduced the metric system. It was very convenient in certain respects, because 1% sugar, fully fermented, produces an alcohol content of 1 degree proof. For this reason, every wine-maker knew that if he began with grape juice or must, as it is called in the wine industry, with a sugar content of 20%, and he brought it to full fermentation, he would get a wine with an alcohol content of 20 degrees proof. So it was a very convenient concept. However, it does not fit into the metric system, and therefore it is being removed from the legislation.

There is another reason why it is being removed from our legislation. In the European wine countries, the strength or alcohol content of wine is indicated in volume percentage. In terms of the old system, spirits with an alcohol content of one degree proof was equal to 0,571% by volume. Differently expressed, one degree proof is equal to 4/7% by volume. Now the impression has gained ground among our people that our natural table wines are so much stronger or heavier or that the alcohol content is so much higher than that of European wines. This is an entirely erroneous impression, for as I have explained, one degree proof is equal to only 4/7% by volume. Therefore wine with an alcohol content of 12% by volume is equal to wine with an alcohol content of 21 degrees proof. Now it seems as if our wine has an alcohol content of 21%, while that of European wines is only 12%. However, this is quite wrong. It confuses the public and creates a quite erroneous impression. For those two reasons, the concept of degrees proof is now being removed from our legislation. Therefore it is a great pleasure to me to give my full support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the House always listens with great interest to the hon. member for Paarl when he discusses the wine industry, because he can certainly be regarded to be a fundi on the subject. I therefore listened to him with interest, as I always do when he discusses this subject. I noted with interest his comment on the new wines with what one might call an “ultra-low” alcohol content. He posed the question of how one is to get a wine with an alcohol content of less than 2%. He said that any product with an alcohol content that low could no longer be described as a wine. I might be able to tell him something in this regard that would interest him. Advances in technology in West Germany have given rise to a system whereby a very acceptable wine with an alcohol content of less than 2% can be produced. In producing this wine the normal fermentation process in the production of wine proceeds to its completion and one ends up with a wine with a normal alcohol content. This wine is then subjected to a vacuum, and we know that in a vacuum one gets evaporation. We also know that alcohol, with a lower specific gravity than water, evaporates first. What happens in fact is that one then gets a wine with an ultra-low alcohol content, but with all the characteristics such as the taste, the bouquet and everything else of a normal wine. It is completely indistinguishable from a wine that has undergone the normal process, except that an analysis of the alcohol content shows it to be very low indeed. I mention this because a question was asked in this regard and because it is a technological advancement. I also mention it because the hon. the Minister of Agriculture recently made a call on the public to drink more wine. In the context in which I think he meant it, namely that wine is a social drink and is less likely to give rise to problems of alcoholism than other strong drink, I support that call. I hope the hon. the Minister will also bear in mind these technological developments which I have discussed and which are applied today in West Germany in a process which produces very good wines. I think we should give every encouragement to those manufacturers who are in a position to produce wines with a lower alcohol content. We know that one very large company was able to produce a wine with an alcohol content of less than 10%. I think this break-through took place last year, and in preceding years. This is another break-through. It opens up a whole new market for wine and I think this is something which could well be encouraged. I would value the hon. the Minister’s comments on this particular aspect.

The hon. member for Paarl has also referred to the differences in alcohol content expressed in degrees proof and percentage by volume. Being a chemist, I listened very carefully to see that he got his percentages right—and of course he did. The removal of the degrees proof reference on the lable will certainly remove any confusion which may have arisen through the fact that normal spirits, such as cane and brandy, contain 43% alcohol but are 75% proof. I think the hon. the Minister again made a valid comment in regard to the removal of this kind of confusion from the minds of people who do not understand these things, but simply go into a bottle-store to buy a bottle of liquor.

I think this country has an enviable record when one looks at the variety of types and qualities of the wine we produce. The legislation before the House is obviously the result of the hon. the Minister’s department having gained experience overseas of some of the problems which they have encountered there and some of the ways in which they have overcome these problems. The problems one refers to are those problems created by certain producers—I am loathe to say “skelm boere” again, because it did give rise to some problems during the last Bill that was under discussion. I shall not refer to the “skelm boere”, because earlier it did give rise to some problems. However, the point is that one can overcome the problem of the fraudulent farmer who is out to make a quick buck and who deliberately gives wrong information and labels his wine incorrectly, thereby obtaining an unfair advantage in the market place. I think it is important to realize that in a country which produces a great deal of wine and in which the amount of money involved in the industry is very large and the annual sales are very high, it is important to guarantee the good name of the country and its wines. Under those circumstances one then has to accept that the penalties for overstepping the mark, for the fraudulent marketing and labelling of wine and for the use of terms that are not approved, will have to be higher than one might normally like to see. When one looks at the new penalties contained in clause 13, one realizes that some of them have been increased by as much as 900% or 1 000%. Normally we in this party would be very reluctant to approve of, without certain guarantees from the Minister concerned, such very high increases in both the fines and the gaol sentences which can be imposed in terms of the legislation. However, when one realizes that this type of provision determining these high fines is largely there to deter people from doing anything that can reflect badly on the name of the wines we are producing and exporting, one realizes that there are circumstances under which one has to look at those penalties in their context and say that although they might be high, we accept them. I think it is important that the hon. the Minister knows that we are looking at those increases in that light. We understand that there have been no prosecutions in terms of the provisions. We hope that this position will remain such that the penalty itself acts as the deterrent, because what we are, in fact, doing here is to try to protect an industry and not to punish people who are not guilty of an offence. I think we must see those penalties in that light With those comments, I say on behalf of the NRP that we shall be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Berea. I am grateful for the degree of support there is for this measure before the House. As I was listening to him saying that new technology in Germany makes it possible to produce wine with a very low or no alcohol content, and as I was listening to the hon. member for Paarl who told us something about alcohol content and the origins of alcohol grading, my mind went back to a report—and I was lucky to be able to find it at once—to this Parliament on Cape Wines and Brandies in 1887. This report on the wines and brandies of the Cape was presented to Parliament by Mr. J. Frazer, the assistant inspector at that time. This report dealt with, amongst other things, proof and alcohol content. It is interesting to see how we have retrogressed, or perhaps how important this kind of legislation is. He said the following—

This is wine that he was testing at one of the wineries in the Cape—

It is very interesting to see that they sold wine then which was 29% proof. Then he goes on to talk about brandy and says—

It is therefore interesting to see the circumstances which did prevail before there was proper control.

I have pleasure in supporting the Bill because in large measure it regularizes what has already become practice in the industry. Basically the Bill does three things. Firstly, it protects the farmer or the producer who plants very shy-bearing varieties such as cabernet sauvignon in small geographic areas which may be expensive to plant, etc. It protects the farmer so that he can establish a reputation and be rewarded for planting such shy-bearing material. Secondly, it protects the merchant who wants to be sure that, when he buys, the product he is buying from the producer is in fact what it purports to be. Thirdly, it serves to protect the consumer who can be certain, when he buys a particular product, that it is from the cultivar, of the vintage, from the region and of the quality advertised. So it gives a three-fold protection, viz. to the producer, to the wholesaler or the merchant and also to the consumer. So in that regard we must of course support this measure.

I now want to go back briefly to the beginning just to get the record straight, as it affects our wine industry. In the past six months certain new research has been carried out and certain new facts have been uncovered which I think are very interesting as they affect the origins of our wines. Since we are discussing in this Bill wines of origin, I think it is the opportune moment to mention this matter. We know that Simon van der Stel farmed in 1685 at Groot Constantia. We know that he produced good wine because we know that the reports of the time quote the fact that he did so. We see that in 1685 the wine was exported to Holland, we see that a small quantity was exported to Batavia, etc. We know that the quality, although not constant, was fairly good. We also know that he began to plant vines on quite a large scale. However, at his death, because it was the Dutch East India Company’s policy, the farm was broken up. It was broken up basically into three pieces. It was broken up into what was known as Groot Constantia, which Oloff Bergh and his wife Anna de Koning bought, Bergvliet and Klein Constantia. The speculator who bought some of the land, Pieter de Meyer, was not allowed to own land as he was in the employ of the company. He therefore sold off part of the land and retained only 45 morgen for himself which he then sold to Jan Jurgen Kotzé, an ancestor of the hon. member for Malmesbury and the hon. member for Parow and a forefather of the Kotzé family, who bought the 45 morgen which later became known as De Hoop, Constantia. But it is that piece of land which has perhaps become the most important piece of land in the history of the wine story in the Cape, because without that land and without the person who farmed that land, the wine story would probably have died. I shall tell hon. members why. Jan Jurgen Kotzé died very shortly after he bought the land, but his wife, Elsabe van Hoff, married a man, Johannes Colijn, who then became half-owner of this 45 morgen piece of land. In 1724 he in turn married a certain Johanna Appel, a daughter from the farm Vergenoeg. That was the beginning of the greatest yet invisible period up until fairly recently of the Constantia and therefore of the Cape wine story. It was invisible because his name never appears as the owner of that farm, and that is probably why history has passed him by and why there has been this enormous gap in our knowledge of the wine story until now.

Without the promising story of Colijn, the wine industry started by Simon van der Stel would probably have ended, because the wine that Colijn produced—and he was the first one to produce good wine in volume—became known as Constantia wine. In 1726 he exported the red and white wine of Constantia to Batavia. In 1728 he exported wine to Holland, and he exported at prices below what his producing costs were in order to establish a reputation and a large market. In 1732 and 1733 he exported wine to Holland. All that time, however, the farm, Groot Constantia, had gone backwards. Oloff Bergh was not interested in wine farming, nor was his wife, but Oloff Bergh died in 1724 and his wife died in 1734, and we know that nothing happened at Groot Constantia during that period, other than what was perhaps done by Colijn to help his neighbour. At that point Colijn stepped in, and not only did he produce from his own vineyards, but he put his brother-in-law, a man called Johan Jurgen Wieser, who had married his sister, Johanna, on the farm at Groot Constantia with an enormous bond, so that he had complete control over the farm. He then began to farm De Hoop of Constantia and Groot Constantia next door. In 1737 Colijn’s sister died, but the arrangement between De Hoop of Constantia and the farm of Constantia was so close that the tradition continued. I mention that because, had it not been for Colijn, had it not been for the fact that he had existed, the 50-year period from Van der Stel to Hendrik Cloete, who made the first wines in this country very famous indeed, would perhaps not have been so promising, because when Hendrik Cloete bought the farm of Groot Constantia, he did so because he was a wealthy farmer of 53 years of age from Stellenbosch, and he bought it because he saw investment opportunities for wine farming there. We therefore see that the quiet Johannes Colijn, the man whose name never appeared on a title deed, because he was never the registered owner, the man who bridged the 50-year gap from Simon van der Stel to Cloete, who has slipped into obscurity and has been forgotten until recently, when his name was discovered through new research, is in a very real sense one of the fathers, if not the father, of the wine industry as it exists in South Africa at present. Because he existed, he gave the wine industry in South Africa at least a 100 years start—some people would say a 150-year start—on the wine industry in other parts of the New World, and that has meant an enormous amount, and we ourselves are today feeling the benefits of the investment he made then.

I do not want to say any more about that, except that I am very glad that I have been able to place on record, in the Hansard of this Parliament, recognition for a man who, until this day, has not been given recognition by South Africa even though he has done so much for the industry in South Africa.

We support this Bill because it supports an industry which has added so much to our culture in the Cape and in the rest of South Africa.

*Sir, I am grateful to have been able to pay tribute to Mr. Johannes Colijn for his services to the wine industry, of which we are still reaping the benefits today.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Minister for the amendments contained in this legislation. Although the provisions are not wide enough, I am nevertheless grateful for them. I want to say at once that I have great appreciation for the wine industry and for the drinking of wine. As a student at Stellenbosch I sometimes worked for the farmers as a tractor-driver in vineyards to earn some pocket money. The hot sun, shady oak trees, the rows of green vines through which I had to drive, the beautiful daughters of the wine-farmers then and today and a glass of wine in the cool cellar at sundown, instilled into me a great appreciation at an early age for the product of the wine farmer and for the skill with which it is produced. There is an old saying: “A meal enjoyed without wine is like a girl that has been kissed but not embraced.” As we all know, the promise of bliss at that early stage lies not so much in the kiss as in the embrace. In the same way, a glass of wine creates the promise of a delicious meal that is to follow.

In my opinion, the most important aspect of this legislation is the expansion of the system of origin, as has already been said here by various speakers. It can only serve as an incentive to the producer and as compensation for initiative, originality and expertise in the production and marketing of his product as well as the quality of the particular wine which he produces.

With a view to further expanding the system of origin, section 21 of the principal Act is being replaced by a new section in terms of clause 8. This is probably one of the most important provisions of the Bill which is before us. In the proposed section, a specific prohibition is imposed upon the use of the name of a grape cultivar, the indication of the vintage, the name of the estate or area of production and certain specific expressions mentioned in the proposed section 21(1)(c) and (d), or words or expressions having a related meaning, except on the conditions to be prescribed by regulation. Particularly important is the prohibition of expressions such as “estate”, “estate wine”, “origin”, “wine of origin”, “vintage”, “late harvest”, and “superior”, for in the past it was possible to use such expressions which could give rise to confusion or deception. With this provision, that possibility is being removed and the system of origin is being expanded and strengthened.

The wine of origin system is very important to the producer, the marketer and the consumer of wine. We must do everything in our power to implement this system effectively. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take measures, as far as he can, to combat any other form of deception with regard to vintage, cultivar and origin, and, if necessary, to introduce further legislative measures.

In addition to this, the proposed deletion of section 36, which deals with the drawing of samples and the institution of proceedings within a specified period, will also help to make action against the undermining of the system more effective.

It is recommended that the words “waarskynlik misleidend kan wees” in the proposed new section 21(1)(a) be replaced by the words “daarmee verwar kan word”, since the concept of “waarskynlik misleidend” could lead to a number of problems regarding interpretation and implementation.

†The hon. the Minister mentioned liquor with an alcohol content of lower than 2%, but I want to tell him that liquor with an alcohol content of less than 2% is not liquor at all.

*It is almost like the NRP, which cannot be an Opposition because they have an alcohol content of less than 2%.

They have got a lower intake!

And output too!

*I want to urge the hon. the Minister to make further amendments to improve the prohibition of deception by inserting a section 23A or by inserting a provision into section 21. I also plead for the protection of farm and regional names, as well as the regulation of the use of trademarks corresponding to such names. I wish to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will propose such an amendment to the Act next year.

On this high note I wish to conclude, and I am almost tempted to ask the hon. the Leader of the House to rise now and to do the necessary!

Mr. Speaker, I have amended this Act six times since 1968. Every time it was an adjustment to bring it into line with Europe and other wine countries. Regulations have had to be drafted to bring about an orderly industry in the country with regard to wine of origin, estate wines, certification, etc. In all the amendments since 1968, the Opposition has supported me. I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg, who grew up in this area, that it was wise of him to support the amendment for the reasons he mentioned. I thank him for doing so.

As for the hon. member for Paarl, there are few people who can talk off the cuff about degree proof spirits, base 75,1% according to volume, etc. To other farmers this is Greek, but he grew up in this environment and under these circumstances, and he knows the industry like the palm of his hand. I want to thank him for his contribution.

†The hon. member for Berea referred to a statement of mine. Last Saturday evening I opened the Rand Daily Mail’s wine festival at Milner Park. That evening I realized that, if we are really honest with regard to agriculture, we must never play politics. Those people are encouraging wine and not hard liquor. I thank the hon. member for his call for a lighter wine. If a man wants a wine with a 2% alcohol content, there is no reason why he should not have it. Some people may say it is too light; that there is no alcohol in it, but then one must also criticize grape juice, orange juice and any other juice. I agree with the hon. member for Berea.

He also asked for a guarantee that a product which is purchased is true to type and label. He realizes that we must have stringent penalties to come in line with other countries.

The hon. member for Maitland is serving on the Constantia Board of Control. I want to thank him for the tribute he paid to Johannes Colijn. We should not neglect to remember the history of this beautiful industry. I think it quite fitting that that should stand in Hansard, so that our children one day will see the tribute paid to a beautiful farm such as Constantia and the developments which have taken place on that farm. In 1728 good Constantia wine was exported to Holland, of all people, and they drank it without complaint. Today they complain.

*The hon. member for King William’s Town began by praising wine and love. That is fine. I have no fault to find with that. The hon. member says that wine of origin should be protected and that deception of the consumer should be prevented. That is the very purpose of this provision. When one considers that there are people who are critical of this industry, it is interesting to note what the apostle Paul himself said.

†In his First Epistle to Timothy St. Paul gave him the following advice—

These are the words of one of the biggest men in history. Also in the Bible, in the book of Genesis, it is related how Noah decided to plant a vineyard.

*Noah’s decision to plant a vineyard can actually be regarded as the beginning of the wine industry. Wine is there to be enjoyed. However, one can overdo everything, of course. One can overeat as well. One can smoke oneself into one’s grave. The secret, however, is to do everything in moderation. One should smoke in moderation. In the same way, one should also be moderate in one’s consumption of wine.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to seek a clarification or an assurance from the hon. the Minister, rather than to raise any objection to clause 8. I think the clause is excellent in its intent and in its content. However, I ask for an explanation because quite recently an incident occurred in the dining-room of the House while I was having a meal with a French visitor.

There is a well-known wine in South Africa which, apart from the name of the producer, also carries on its label the appellation “premier cru”, which means “first growth”. I think hon. members who are interested in wine will know that “premier cru” has a very special meaning in France and in the international wine trade. It refers, of course, to the classification of French wines in the time of Napoleon, when he selected the 100 best wines and gave them a special status in the French wine industry. They have remained in that category ever since. There was later established a “deuxième cru” of 100 wines, as well as a “troisième cru” of yet another 100 wines. These great vineyards and these great wines carry a very special status, a very special prestige.

The objects of clause 8 are precisely to avoid the kind of false appellation, the kind of misconception, the kind of confusion which can only bring—if you like—prejudice to South African wines. I believe we should avoid this kind of confusion in the naming of South African wines. I want to bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I want to know from him whether attention could be given also to the possibility of avoiding labelling or appellations which are not necessarily designed to misled, but nevertheless have that effect. I have no intention to suggest that this particular wine to which I refer, which is a very good wine, carries that label in order to mislead the public. I think that appellation is applied merely to give the wine a sort of Frenchified appearance or to create the impression that it is of a very high quality. I believe, however, that it is entirely misleading and certainly anybody who came to South Africa to drink our wines or to buy our wines for re-sale in a European country, would, in fact, find himself in extreme difficulty because of the entirely wrong impression which he would get. I bring this to the hon. the Minister’s attention because I hope that in this respect, as is the case in respect of the other matters mentioned in these clauses, we shall also make sure that this excellent provision is carried out in full.

Mr. Chairman, I think that what the hon. member for Constantia has just said is what we intend through this clause, and in fact, the whole Bill. We do not want people to be misled. I can give him the assurance that we will pay attention to this aspect. He says the name “Premier Grand Cru” is connected with France. I did not know this as I am not familiar with the wine, but I am sure that the intention of the legislation is that people should not be misled. We will definitely rectify the matter and see to it that it does not recur in the future.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, this clause is the very heart of the Bill. It is a clause which makes provision for tenants to be evicted should the flats in which they live and which are under rent control at present, be purchased by someone else in terms of the provisions of the Sectional Titles Act. It is a clause which I described during the Second Reading debate as one which will send a shudder through the flat-dwelling community. I believe that, once the import of this clause is understood, that very shudder will be felt in hundreds of thousands of homes throughout South Africa.

We had hoped that in his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister in charge of this Bill would have answered certain specific points put to him. Had he not done so, as indeed he did not, one would have expected the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development, who is completely versed in this particular measure, to have done so.

You should know better than that.

I hope that either the hon. the Minister in charge of this Bill or the hon. the Minister of Community Development upon whose portfolio this particular Bill impinges will give the replies. I want to put six pertinent questions, not emotional questions, but straight questions, to the hon. the Minister in charge of this Bill.

First of all, assurances have been repeatedly given inside and outside this House on behalf of the Government that the tenants in the lower income group would receive continuous protection under the Rent Control Act, but do those assurances that have been repeatedly given fall away or do they stand? I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether these assurances will fall away. I also want to put the question to the other hon. Minister. I said in my speech yesterday that I believed that the assurance that was given was accepted by the tenants as being an assurance made in good faith. I do not doubt the good faith of the people who gave that assurance, but what we do say is that this clause will destroy that assurance. To recap, I want to say that, although yesterday I read certain statements made by Ministers outside of this House, inside of this House specific …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Sea Point is repeating his Second Reading speech. Surely he is discussing the principle of the Bill and not the details which are the subject of discussion during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on that point?

That is not necessary. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the abolition of a certain provision relating to the Rents Act. We are going to oppose this clause and we are giving the reasons why we oppose it.

The principle of that has already been accepted.

We are entitled to argue our opposition to this clause.

Order! The position is that one speaker on each side of the House is permitted to discuss the principle of the Bill during the Committee Stage.

Does the assurance given by the hon. the Minister in this House fall away? The hon. member for Durban Central with reference to the protection given under the means test asked whether the relaxation of rent control was only a temporary measure. The hon. the Minister answered: Not necessarily. The protection does not apply to the occupant. The control is in respect of the actual premises. As long as the man or woman stays in the particular flat or house, rent control would apply. (Hansard 1978, col. 5841). A specific question was put across the floor of the House and the deliberate answer given was that as long as that person remained in that flat, rent control would apply.

I want to put a second question to the hon. the Minister in relation to this particular clause. If this clause is passed and becomes effective, will tenants, especially tenants who qualify for protection in terms of the Housing Act, have any security of tenure? Will these tenants have any security of tenure or not? We argue that, once this Bill becomes law, any security of tenure they might have had before, will fall away, and that they can then be evicted in favour of the new owner who purchases it under sectional title.

I want to put a third specific point to the hon. the Minister which was argued across the floor of the House yesterday. Has the Government made an assessment of how many tenants are going to be exposed to eviction once this Bill becomes law? Yesterday hon. members like the hon. member for Algoa said that it would perhaps apply to a few hundred people. Others said it would affect only a limited number of people. In this regard one must refer to the report of the Fouché Commission to see the scope of this particular clause. The Fouché Commission said that the number of flats which existed in 1966 and which fell under rent control, constituted 170 000 units. 170 000 flats, not houses, fell under rent control. Secondly, it was said that at least 50% of the people in those flats automatically qualified because of their income level and that a further 20% could qualify. In other words, the Fouché Commission itself found that more than 50% of the occupants of those 170 000 flats were deserving of the protection which the hon. the Minister said these people would have.

Last year the hon. the Minister said in this House that a probe had been done in my constituency, Sea Point and that it was found there that more than one-third of the people living in rent-controlled flats earned incomes above the income level at which people were deserving of protection. The converse must be that nearly two thirds of the people living in those rent-controlled flats are deserving of that protection. So one can assume that something like 85 000 to 100 000 flat units are going to be affected and that the residents of those flats are going to lose their security.

Fourthly, the hon. the Minister made an astounding statement in which he said: “Ná verkoping is individuele woonstelle van huurbeheer onthef.” He said that we are actually just regularizing a de facto situation: “Die departement is ver van mening dat ons hier slegs besig is om ’n de facto-posisie te wettig.” He also said that: “Na sulke transaksies die departement in elk geval die opheffing van huurbeheer toegestaan het.” The department has no right to do so. The Act is very clear on that. An “opheffing” can only occur through the hon. the Minister by proclamation in the Gazette. It can only be done with the approval of the hon. the Minister, by proclamation in the Gazette, in terms of section 51(g). I want to know from the hon. the Minister, if he says that this has already been done, how many proclamations there have been. How many proclamations have there been which have enabled tenants to be evicted because someone else has purchased the particular flat in which they live?

Fifthly, a lot of emphasis was placed on the recommendations of the Fouché Commission from which the hon. the Minister quoted. However, I must point out that the Fouché Commission reported to the Government in 1977, and the assurance was given by the hon. the Minister and the rest of the Government after the Fouché Commission had reported. The assurances were given in 1978 and were repeated in 1979. So, because the Fouché Commission had made these recommendations a year before the hon. the Minister gave the assurance, surely the ordinary tenants of South Africa must believe that that assurance was given in spite of the recommendations of the Fouché Commission. Let us also understand that the Government has rejected an important part of the Fouché Commission report. The Fouché Commission recommended that no specific provision in rent control should be made for people in the lower-income groups. It was a specific recommendation of the Fouché Commission that no provision should be made. The Government rejected that and said that it was going to make specific provision for on-going protection for those tenants who qualified under the Housing Act. The hon. the Minister went on to say that that protection would remain for as long as those people resided in those particular apartments and their income did not exceed the amount laid down. We therefore reject this clause. We think that in a sense it is unworthy of the Government. It is unworthy of the Government to make a commitment to tenants by saying that the process is an on-going one and then, without any real reason—the hon. the Minister said he was not going to give us the reasons—and then to go back on its word.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.