Mr Chairman, in the Additional Appropriation Bill that is before the House at present, an additional amount of R318.475 million is requested for appropriation for the 1988-89 financial year.

At the outset I should like to emphasise that the Ministers’ Council constantly tries not to place unnecessary pressure on the central Treasury. It does so not only by restricting expenditure to the absolute essentials, but also by giving constant attention to the greatest possible utilisation of its identified sources of revenue. Upon the request of the Ministers’ Council, the respective departments of the Administration: House of Assembly are once again giving in-depth attention to options with regard to further supplementing their income. In the mean time the Administration: House of Assembly continues unceasingly to restrict Government expenditure as far as this is practically possible in the extremely tight financial position we are experiencing.

As a result my colleagues and I managed to find R119,511 million, or 37,5%, of the additional funds necessary to make good deficits in the present financial year from own funds. Consequently this amount of R119,511 million does not form an additional burden on the central Treasury. I should like to convey my sincere thanks to my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council for their contribution in this regard.

In addition a total amount of R23,901 million has been suspended in the case of general affairs departments for reappropriation to the Administration: House of Assembly with regard to services that were transferred during the course of the present financial year. Since this amount of R23,901 million was appropriated initially, it too is no additional burden on the central Treasury, but is merely a transfer of funds.

The remainder of R175.063 million represents expenditure over which the Administration: House of Assembly had no control and which consequently cannot be regarded as overspending. This expenditure comprises flood disaster relief, improvement of conditions of service and the increase in social pensions and allowances.

In addition the hon the Minister of Finance appealed to the Administration: House of Assembly during November 1988 to save 0,5% on the appropriation for 1988-89. Although it is extremely difficult at such a late stage in a financial year to rearrange priorities in such a way as to effect fundamental savings, the Ministers’ Council succeeded in saving an amount of R13,441 million. This was a further contribution in alleviating the pressure on the central Treasury.

The additional request of R318,475 million will be financed as follows: An amount of R119,511 million is financed by the Ministers’ Council from available funds in the Revenue Account: House of Assembly; an amount of R118,987 million is being recovered on the Improvement of Conditions of Service Vote; and an amount of R79.977 million is being made available by the hon the Minister of Finance. This amounts to a total of R318,475 million, which is equal to the deficit that has to be financed.

†DETAILS

I would now like to deal briefly with the amounts required in respect of individual Votes.

VOTE 2: AGRICULTURE AND WATER SUPPLY

An additional amount of R88,318 million is required in respect of this Vote. This increase can be attributed to the escalation of normal continuation costs and the extension and introduction of certain schemes in respect of assistance to the farming community resulting from flood disasters and continuing droughts that are still being experienced in many parts of our country.

The increase under the Programme Agricultural Financing can be ascribed mainly to an additional amount of R60 million which is required for the continuation of emergency flood assistance in the Orange Free State and Natal. This amount represents the balance of the R160 million earmarked by the Cabinet for the Administration: House of Assembly for emergency assistance, and of which only R100 million was allocated in the main Budget for 1988-89.

The Cabinet has also approved an additional amount of R10 million to be appropriated for the continuation of drilling work for farmers in the designated areas, whose boreholes deteriorated or desiccated as a result of the prolonged drought.

VOTE 3: EDUCATION AND CULTURE

An additional amount of R28,58 million is needed in respect of this Vote. Although an amount of R29,849 million was initially requested for this Vote, the Department of Education and Culture succeeded in effecting savings to an amount of R1,259 million.

The net amount of R28,58 million is required mainly for deficits which were identified by the various provincial education departments under the control of the Department of Education and Culture.

VOTE 4: LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND WORKS

An additional amount of R36,052 million is required for this Vote. This increase can be attributed mainly to the shortages which are being experienced in respect of buildings, structures, equipment and office accommodation as well as interest subsidies on mortgage loans of homeowners.

VOTE 5: BUDGETARY AND AUXILIARY SERVICES

The amount of R3,318 million reflected under this Vote includes an amount of R2,8 million due to the increase of postal tariffs and arrear postage payments and an amount of R518 000 for expenditure resulting from the auditing of the accounts of the various departments of the Administration: House of Assembly. The latter amount of R518 000 has been suspended on the Votes of the provincial administrations and reallocated to this Vote.

*VOTE 6: IMPROVEMENT OF CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

The increased amount of R118,987 million under this Vote is needed for the announced general salary adjustment as well as for occupational specific improvements.

VOTE 7: WELFARE

An additional amount of R13,404 million is being requested for this Vote. Social pensions and allowances were increased with effect from 1 January 1989. As far as the Administration: House of Assembly is concerned, these increases will result in the additional expenditure of R8,765 million during the present financial year. The balance of R4,639 million is needed for subsidising welfare projects on which the Ministers’ Council places a high premium.

VOTE 8: HEALTH SERVICES

An additional amount of R29,816 million is needed under this Vote. This includes an amount of R23,069 million for the transfer of day hospitals, pharmaceutical services and school health services. This amount has been suspended with regard to the other Votes and consequently is not an additional burden on the central Treasury. The balance of R6,747 million is needed mainly for deficits that are being experienced with regard to mental health services and dental services.

CONCLUSION

The request for the additional amount of R318,475 million is ascribed to unforeseen circumstances which were unknown when the main budget for 1988-89 was drawn up. As I have said, however, everything possible has been done to prevent unnecessary pressure being placed on the central Treasury. In my opinion the Ministers’ Council has done excellent work in this connection. My colleagues in the Ministers’ Council will be able to provide further information about the details of the additional expenditure. I request the House to approve the additional appropriation in the amount of R318,475 million.

Mr Chairman, in the first instance I should like to request the hon the Minister and his department to make this explanatory memorandum available in Afrikaans as well in future. I think it is essential that we ensure that we receive it in both languages. I did not receive it in both languages, but let us leave it at that.

In discussing Vote 2, 1 want to tell the hon the Minister of Agriculture that droughts, inflation and interest rates have always been the three problems he has had to contend with, which means that he knows what the problems with regard to agriculture are. We are very thankful for the beautiful rains which fell in the summer grain areas, and now only inflation and interest rates remain to be addressed by the hon the Minister.

Bearing in mind the prime overdraft rate of 19% which is the order of the day at the moment, we feel that we will have a repetition of the 1984 and 1985 seasons in that we shall see many farmers going bankrupt, because at a prime overdraft rate of 19%, the interest paid by farmers adds up to about R2,5 billion per year. The farmers simply cannot afford this. We are very thankful for the rain, because it emphasises once again the enormous importance of agriculture. It does not rain only for the farmers, but also for tractor and implement salesmen, vehicle manufacturers and for the traders in particular, and it creates magnificent prospects for other economic activities as a result.

We are glad to see that this additional appropriation shows that the hon the Minister is trying to cut costs. We support his idea of saving money, but—we hold this against the Minister—we resent his withholding available assistance which was voted for the farmers. The hon the Minister is withholding short-term funds from the farmers. As a result we are going to have a repetition—we were just getting our heads above water—of the depopulation of the rural areas, which will actually result in a worsening situation and will drastically increase the security risks.

We must tell the hon the Minister that this appropriation indicates a R4 million decrease under “safety of inhabitants”. A few days ago the hon member for Potgietersrus explained the farmers’ position very well. We want to request the hon the Minister to go into this matter very thoroughly because it is very important.

We also see this withholding of funds in the consolidation of debt, because R142 million was budgeted for the consolidation of debt. Of this amount, only R100 million has been used, even though R142 million was made available to the farmers.

We also see that the money supply has been cut off in respect of land and improvements, as there has been a drastic decrease. It is shocking. An amount of R35,982 million was budgeted for land and improvements, of which R30,982 has been withheld or has not been spent. How can a young farmer start out and how can an established farmer buy land and carry out improvements?

It seems to me that the NP is becoming scared of assisting farmers in a positive way, because if we take a look at the total reflux of capital—this is in interest and credit balance—the amount comes to more than R100 million. This is sufficient proof that farmers are safe “clients” for the State. I think the farmers should be congratulated on achieving such a large reflux of capital under these critical economic conditions into which the NP Government has plunged us. It is an undisputed fact that our farmers are being economically strangled. The R46,1 million increase in carry-over debt and the R12,5 million increase in production credit emphasise how critical the farmers’ position has become. [Interjections.JI cannot hear what the hon member is saying.

The Government must play its part in curbing these rising costs suffered by the agricultural sector, such as rising interest rates, fuel prices, transport tariffs, etc. We want to know why the R24,5 million which was budgeted for the conversion of marginal land, has been reduced to an amount of R10,5 million. Could the hon the Minister perhaps tell us whether the scheme was a failure, or was the revision necessary because of administrative problems.

We are not the only ones who are worried about the present state of affairs. The AHI, which has always supported the Government, shares our concern. In a press statement released on 22 February 1989, they say that a more restrictive monetary policy has become unavoidable. Why? Here is the reason:

I have nothing more to add, because herein lies the answer.

Mr Chairman, the need for additional appropriation can arise for basically three reasons, firstly, that the expenditure was unforeseen; secondly, that it occurred as a result of unforeseen circumstances or circumstances outside the hon the Minister’s control; and thirdly, due to increases in expenditure which result from matters over which the hon the Minister did have control.

Then there is the question of how the additional expenditure is actually to be funded. This year the hon the Minister has in fact spelled out in some detail where the money is coming from to finance this additional expenditure. We note that R119,5 million is in fact from accrued savings within the income statement of the administration.

Last year this raised a lot of discussion in this particular debate because it was not possible to tie up the amount in the general appropriation with the amount actually to be spent by this administration. This year we do have the figures and they do tie up, for which I thank the hon the Minister.

However, I do have one question. Last year when we were trying to reconcile the difference, my colleague the hon member for Yeoville asked whether the shortfall or the money overspent was to come from the own affairs administration Treasury. The answer from the hon the Minister at that time was: “I can tell the hon member that we have virtually exhausted it.”

If that were so last year, I would like to ask where the R119,5 million is coming from this year? The point has been made by the hon member from the CP that not all moneys appropriated were spent last year, and one assumes that that is what happened. However, it would be interesting to have the detail as to where that R119,5 million has come from.

Regarding the overall detail of this appropriation, my first question relates to the transfer of pharmaceutical services and day hospital clinics from the provincial administration to this Budget. If I understood the hon the Minister correctly, this is not an additional expenditure, but an interdepartmental transfer, but I would like his assurance that there will be commensurate savings in the relevant provincial budgets.

The second comment I have relates to the additional R13 million which is required because of keen participation in the first time home owners’ interest subsidy scheme. I think that we all find this encouraging. However, despite the subsidy, we have to be concerned about the upward trend in interest rates. In many instances in bond repayments the interest portion thereof, has increased by 50% or more. Whereas the decision by first-time home owners to buy a house may have been financially viable about twelve months ago, because of the interest rate increase and despite the subsidy, I believe that there are many individual home owners who are now finding it extremely difficult to meet their obligations. I do not suggest any solution to this save to ask the hon the Minister concerned to give it his urgent attention.

Much has been said about the increases in salaries, wages and allowances contained in Vote 6. However, I would just like to touch on one aspect which deals with the salaries paid to schoolteachers and the impact which the increase will have on the finances of private schools. Clearly, in order to remain competitive, private schools have to match as far as possible the remuneration paid by this department. I do not believe that the considerable burden placed on these schools will be alleviated by an increase in the subsidy, but I would ask the hon the Minister to advise on this. The subsidy will presumably be based on the lower figures and therefore the private schools will have to find the shortfall, which I believe will impose some hardship on them.

Whilst on the subject of private schools, the hon the Minister referred to the question of subsidies in the debate last week and mentioned that these run up to 45%. As I understand it, the figure is either 15% or 45% and I would ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works or the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, particularly with regard to those private schools which are only receiving the 15% subsidy, please to clarify firstly the basis of distinction between the 15% and 45% and, secondly, disclose what proportion of private schools actually get the higher subsidy.

Programme 6 of Vote 7 shows a decrease of R4 million in the amount spent on community welfare. I find it difficult to understand the drop in expenditure, as I am sure that there is an ever-increasing demand for such assistance. As I understand from the memorandum, we are told in the explanatory notes that in response to a request from the hon the Minister of Finance, budget cuts of 0,5% were made across the board.

Surely these cuts should not be across the board but should be far more selective. My concern is that we may be achieving savings in expenditure which may make a significant difference for some unfortunate individuals who are dependent on welfare.

In Vote 4, Programme 5, increased spending is partly for the improvement of living conditions of employees of other population groups within this administration. I would like further explanation of this. I can understand that members of other race groups are employed by this administration, but how are we able to improve their living conditions other than by way of remuneration? I would ask the hon the Minister to give an explanation for this.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to refer to the Additional Appropriation Bill which is before us. This required amount of approximately R319 million represents an increase of 5,3% on the amount originally budgeted. If we take into account the RU9 million required for salary adjustments—I shall refer to that again later—the increase is only 3,4%. If we also take into account the R60 million required as a result of flood damage, it leaves us with an amount of R59 million, an increase of only 0,99%. This is neat budgeting; this is a very realistic additional amount which is being requested. We should like to congratulate the hon the Minister and the Ministers’ Council on this budget. It reflects neat and effective administration and neat and good planning.

The Administration: House of Assembly is now well established, as are the other own affairs administrations. I want to pay tribute today to the officials who played such an important part, and indeed are still doing so, in getting own affairs off the ground. When the new Constitution came into operation this was a totally new field that had to be developed, a completely new concept that had to be established. There was no existing foundation on which to build. The work done by the officials over the years in getting the various departments off the ground has always been of the highest calibre. I want to tell them today that we are proud of them; South Africa is proud of these officials. We are pleased to have the opportunity to thank them for the good work which has been done in establishing own affairs.

For this reason we are grateful that provision has been made in this additional appropriation for R119 million for the improvement of conditions of service. It was necessary for the officials to receive a reasonable adjustment, which is certainly not enough at this time of price increases, but we are grateful that it has been requested in this additional appropriation.

I should like to refer briefly to one entry under Vote 3, Education and Culture. I want to refer specifically to the amount of R220 000 under Programme 5. This represents a partial provision for a Government loan to Prinshof School which is in my constituency. It is intended and envisaged for the acquisition of additional land to extend that school. On behalf of Prinshof School, and on behalf of the community and the parents of those handicapped children, I should like to express our appreciation of the fact that this matter has progressed far enough for them to start acquiring additional land, as it is essential that this school be extended.

Own affairs have now been established and we should really like to express the hope that with this additional appropriation and that which is to follow, we shall succeed in getting own affairs off the ground properly.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members who participated in the debate. I want to tell the hon member for Delmas that the explanatory memorandum is provided by us to Parliament in both languages. Then it is distributed. It is therefore available in both official languages and if the hon member wants an Afrikaans or an English version, he can collect it from us with pleasure. The hon member spoke about agriculture. The hon the Minister of Agriculture will reply to the questions which the hon member specifically asked about agriculture when we discuss the schedules.

†The hon member for Pinelands said that there were three ways of evaluating the budget. If he looks at this budget he will see that although we are nominally asking 5,4% of the budgeted amount that is R318,475 million, the shortfall or the underestimate of R119,511 million or 37,5% is funded by means of our own revenue account. The R118,987 million is included for the salary improvements and the R23,901 million for the transfer of new services, mainly health services, to the administration.

According to his own definition the latter two amounts cannot be classified as actual underestimates because they are shown here as estimates and they are reflected in provincial or other accounts as shortfalls or savings of budgeted money because they were previously budgeted for and approved under different Votes and simply transferred. That leaves us with a mere R56,076 million or 17,6% that we have actually requested from the exchequer account. If we relate that to the budget we have in fact—by the hon member’s own definition—an additional expenditure of only 0,9% over our original budgeted amount.

*For this reason I should like to convey my congratulations to the officials—the Director-General, heads of departments and the Treasury—as well as my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council. It is a remarkable achievement that we actually have less than one percent additional expenditure.

†It speaks of tight administration and careful financial control and I am proud of what has been achieved there.

We should not see this budget in isolation. The fact of the matter is that in line with the economic exigencies the country faces as a whole, we in this administration face them as well. I tried to reflect that in my opening remarks.

This economy faces a critical year. Economic restructuring is absolutely essential for South Africa. We must do the right things. We must remember that next year we enter into debt renegotiations. It is a critical and very important time for us. If we do the right things now, that is to keep as much fiscal discipline as possible, we will reap tremendous rewards next year. If we do the wrong things now we are going to pay a heavy price. That is why we have tried to display so much fiscal discipline.

The constraints on the balance of payments and inflation will be with us this year because of the lower gold price, and curiously enough, because of the confidence displayed in our economy last year. Last year enormous confidence returned to the economy as well as early this year and this has meant increased production. Hon members will have noticed that there has been an increase in GDP which means that people are going for increased production, and this fact, of course, is reflected in new machinery because 80% of our imports consist of capital equipment. So the confidence is reflected immediately in pressure on the balance of payments.

Curiously enough, the improving confidence and the fact that people are seeking to increase their capacity cause us a slight problem of pressure on our balance of payments of the current account. Therefore we must also apply discipline.

I think it was John Donne who said: No man is an island. The hon the Minister of Finance is no exception. We in this administration will help him. We will help the Government to respond adequately to the constraints of our time and to the economic challenges which we face. We will contribute our part. We do not stand alone. We are all pulling in the same direction.

*Mr Chairman, Vote No 4, Programmes 4 and 5, on page 8 of the explanatory memorandum, also form part of my ministry. If there are questions which belong under these programmes I will try to reply to them as well.

†I should like to reply now to the hon member for Pinelands. In connection with private schools he asked why some of them received 15% and others 45%. The fact of the matter is simply that an assessment is done. A questionnaire is sent out asking how many sport fields, how many tennis courts and so on each school has, and also what the teacher-pupil ratio is in each case, as well as the number of subjects taught. Furthermore questions are asked relating to school buildings and physical and educational services offered by each particular school. The more a school offers the higher the subsidy it receives. Should a school therefore qualify for the full subsidy of 45% it will be granted to that school. That is how I understand the matter.

If the hon member is not yet in possession of the actual details, I should be delighted either to get the information for him or to ask the relevant hon Minister to provide him with it at a later stage. I want to repeat what I have said before. There is no one in this House more sympathetic to private schools than I am. In fact all my children were or are still attending private schools. The fact of the matter is that we must be careful not to kill people with kindness. Whereas I am all in favour of subsidisation of private schools up to 45%—I have had representations from people wanting me to assist their schools to obtain higher subsidies—in my view, if one were to go far beyond that percentage, one would in fact threaten the very independence of those schools themselves. I believe that would be a great tragedy. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, the subsidy was increased by more than 19% during the past 12 months—from something like R29 million to something over R34 million. That shows that the Government is interested in and concerned about the private school movement. Moreover the Government sees in this an essential part of the whole matrix of educational facilities offered to the people of our country.

*The hon member for Gezina made a very fine speech. We know him to be person who understands finance and who has studied appropriations over the years. Consequently, when we get a pat on the back from him, we know it comes from an expert. It therefore means a lot to us, and we thank him most sincerely for this.

We also know this hon member as a good representative of his constituency, who serves his constituents with great distinction. He has now publicly made a request, on behalf of the voters in his constituency, which in the past he has frequently made in private. He knows, as well as we do, that we share his gratitude that this project is now starting and that the money is available for it.

If there are further specific questions, we can deal with them when the schedules are put one by one.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a first time.

Debate on Schedule

Vote No 2—“Agriculture and Water Supply”:

Mr Chairman, in his First Reading speech the hon member for Delmas touched on certain matters to which the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works did not attempt to reply. Not that I can blame him for not trying, because I do not think he could!

I now want to direct a few questions to the hon the Minister of Agriculture. Last year during this discussion of the Additional Appropriation Bill we took the hon the Minister to task for not using funds that had been appropriated for Agriculture. It now appears that the same process has repeated itself this year, a year which is rapidly drawing to a close. I am referring to the drastic reduction that has taken place. While R35,982 million was appropriated for land and improvements, the hon Minister did not see his way clear to spending R5 million. To us, members of this House who represent rural constituencies, to whom repeated requests in this regard are made by voters for amounts which are subsequently not granted, it would appear that certain requirements are purposely not being complied with. The same is true for the consolidation of debt. Whereas R142 million was appropriated, we are now sitting with a decrease of R42 million.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister a question. Where did the credit balance R43,3 million as at 1 April 1988—this is in the case of debt repayment—come from? Why was the hon the Minister not aware of this last year, at the end of the financial year? I should like to have an explanation.

The member for Gezina waxed lyrical about the fact that the demand was only slightly in excess of what the original appropriation was, but then he conveniently forgot to take into consideration the tremendous increase in the debt and interest repayment by farmers.

I should also like to have an explanation from the hon the Minister with regard to the R22,8 million appropriated to cover claims under the State Guarantee and the Land Bank. The explanatory memorandum had no indication of any efforts to provide an explanation. The hon the Minister could obviously not succeed in spending a cent of the money. What has happened to that money?

Mr Chairman, the hon member asked a whole series of questions, but I immediately want to react to the one involving the amount of R22,8 million which normally appears in the budget of this department in regard to the guarantee of R800 million. We felt that this R22,8 million did not belong in this budget. The R22,8 million will now be reimbursed from the Exchequer of the Central Government. That is the reason why it does not appear here and why we have not made provision for the amount. It is, in reality, an amount which has been transferred to the Exchequer of the Central Government and it is now their responsibility. I hope I have now given an adequate reply on that aspect.

But has it been spent there?

Well, that is a good question. It will be spent, because the claims come in and are met. It is therefore being spent.

The hon member is concerned at the fact that there is a tremendous decrease in expenditure in the Agricultural Credit Account, but this budget being what it is—and it is very complex budget— throughout the year virement reallocations take place because the conditions pertaining to the various aid schemes vary tremendously in the course of a financial year. I should like to inform the hon member about the virement reallocations that have taken place here.

The hon member referred to funds which were allocated to the department but which were not spent. I take it the hon member was referring to the amount of R400 million which came up two years ago. [Interjections.] Yes, the allocation of R400 million which was made to this department two years ago for the restructuring of agriculture. This amount has been woven into the fabric of these budgetary accounts.

If the hon member so desires, I shall extract the information for him. Let me say at once that this is an extremely complex procedure. I have asked my department to extract the material to indicate how this R400 million for the restructuring programme was spent in the overall Agricultural Credit Account. For the record I want to give hon members these figures.

If one looks at crop production, one sees that an amount of R10 million of the R185 million was spent. Of the available R400 million we are able to spent R185 million this year, with the other R185 million to be spent next year. We are therefore spending R10 million of the R185 million on crop production. Because it was a good year, financially speaking—I am saying this for the benefit of the hon member for Delmas— there was a greater demand for crop production loans. When they have a good year, the farmers tend to be more progressive. Because we granted many of these loans, there was an increase of R12 million.

They are saying, are they not, that Hendrik Schoeman is coming back as Minister of Agriculture! What does the hon the Minister have to say about that?

I do not think that is a question relevant to this issue. The hon member mentioned an additional amount we spent from the restructuring programme’s R400 million. We initially budgeted for R24,5 million for the land conversion scheme. Those funds should also be financed from the R185 million. For that purpose we have now made provision for R10,5 million. It is also important to remember that the emergency drought-aid scheme in the Western Transvaal is also financed from this amount to the tune of R99 million. Of that amount, R16 million was also allocated for further interest subsidy claims. This means that R115 million was used solely for the emergency drought-aid scheme.

Hon members know that funds that accrue to one are actually deducted. It therefore indicates a decrease. The department itself added R20 million from the funds that accrued to it, because the department itself is a creditor in the emergency aid scheme. What is more, one has a situation here in which a net decrease of approximately R150 million is reflected on the Agricultural Credit Account, specifically as a result of a redistribution of the funds allocated for the restructuring of agriculture and reflux of capital.

Then there is an amount of R43 million—unspent funds in the Agricultural Credit Account—which was carried over from the previous year. There is also the increase of R60 million in the estimated reflux of capital and interest from the Agricultural Credit Account. The Agricultural Credit Account is such an unpredictable account in my budget, because one never knows what the reflux of capital and interest in the account is going to be. At the beginning of the year that reflux is ultimately deducted from the budget. This has an effect on the extent of the increase or decrease reflected in the account.

It is important to remember that although one has a decrease in the Agricultural Credit Account, with the reallocation or redistribution of funds one has a total increase of R219,7 million under the item “Subsidies” under Programme 6. This is a net increase—ie if one subtracts the increases and decreases from one another—of R72,524 million. Whereas one has a decrease on the one hand, here one has an increase.

An expected increase of R58,6 million in subsidy interest claims, according to the Land Bank estimate under the carry-over debt and production credit subsidy schemes, is chiefly the result of recently announced and further expected increases in interest rates. It must be emphasised that any further increase in interest rates would place further pressure on these elements. In other words, one redistributes funds from aid schemes, which are very strongly dependent on interest rates, for further increases in interest subsidies. As a result of the latest interest rates we shall probably be taking another look at this matter.

Then there is the additional amount we need from the State for the flood relief. We also have an increase in the emergency aid schemes for stock farmers. The amount involved is R6,8 million. There are water quota subsidies and smaller amounts which I can give the hon member if he wants them.

There is consequently a decrease, but also an increase as a result of certain manifestations. There is a further distribution of the R185 million which was available from the R400 million. In effect the financing of the aid programmes in the budget has not diminished, but improved.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 3—“Education and Culture”:

Mr Chairman, I should like to know something from the hon the Minister about Programme 2—which deals with ordinary school education and teacher training. Last night on the television news he announced that an auxiliary service for the training of teachers for KwaZulu was being provided by his department. Programme 2 is the largest single item, for which an increase of R38,66 million is being requested in the Additional Appropriation. I want to ask whether provision is going to be made here for that assistance to KwaZulu under this Vote?

With regard to Programme 7, last year I asked the hon the Minister a question about the financial assistance to the FAK in respect of the Great Trek festival. On 17 May 1988—ie after the Main Budget—he replied that R430 000 had been allocated to the FAK on 14 April 1987, and an amount of R120 000 on 15 March 1988. From the response by the hon the Minister earlier, during the interpellation, it is clear that there is an additional R140 000 that has not been declared here. I should like to have the hon the Minister clear this matter up.

In respect of Programme 8—“Associated and supporting services’ ’, it is disturbing that whereas R2,006 million was budgeted for professional services, at the end of the day only R1,206 million was spent on these services. An additional amount of R11,627 million was appropriated for educational planning, and ultimately only R4,227 million was spent. The explanation the hon the Minister gives for this is roughly the same as that given last year, namely that there are no suitable candidates to fill these posts.

Since his department has had this problem for a considerable length of time, I should now like to know from the hon the Minister whether any investigation has been undertaken into why there is a lack of interest in these posts, or if it might perhaps be the conditions of service which do not compete with those in the private sector.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brits’ first question dealt with KwaZulu and the amount of money involved in the undertaking that was signed. Let me tell the hon member immediately that there is no additional money involved in that. The fact of the matter is that the students are actually teachers already in the employ of KwaZulu. They will pay class fees at that continuation college—it is therefore not as if they were permanent residents there—as all the other White teachers pay who are attending continuation classes. The State’s contribution is embodied in a subsidy which is normally paid, as at every other university, on the basis of the numbers receiving tuition. It will therefore not be embodied in this.

In regard to Programme 7 the question at issue was the FAK, if I remember correctly. This time the hon member’s figures were correct, notwithstanding the fact that he. was a clergyman. If I remember correctly, an amount of R430 000 was initially granted. This was followed by an amount of R120 000, and then a further Ri40 000 was allocated. That R140 000 is embodied in this budget. If I could give the hon member further details relating to Programme 7, since he is concerned about the amounts …

Just tell us the formula!

The hon member would not understand it anyway. [Interjections.]

On the same question of virement, about which my hon colleague spoke and which is going to be implemented in respect of specific fees—not column 2 items—hon members will note that that amount is to be found in the budget. If the savings in one component can be employed within the context of another component, this can be done. It is therefore incorporated in the budget as such.

In regard to Programme 8, the hon member did, in fact, correctly remark that there was an exceptionally large decrease in respect of specific items. For example, under supporting education services there is a decrease of R800 000 in regard to professional services, an aspect to which he referred. I think it is merely good planning and good budgeting if one does, in fact, make provision for the salaries of those staff specialists—I want to emphasise the word “specialists”—because owing to the fact that professional people are specialists, one must firstly note that one has a very difficult job obtaining their services. Secondly, one sometimes gets the people, but only at a late stage in the financial year. In other words, too much was budgeted because we believed we would obtain their services from the beginning of the financial year. I do not want to say that not one of those posts has been filled, but the fact is that they were filled in the course of the financial year.

The hon member asked whether this was not related to the conditions of service. We would, of course, be able to discuss this issue at great length. One cannot only focus on that group and come along with a differentiated salary package. That is a model, but whether it can work is not that easy to determine, and I think the hon member understands the problems involved. We cannot simply establish a separate conditions of service package for those staff members. It will simply be a case of our having a surplus year after year in regard to those amounts.

The hon member also referred to educational planning. In that regard I want to point out to the hon member, for example, that there is equipment included under this item. I also want to tell him that we have a surplus of R3,5 million because we could not obtain the computer equipment we ordered in time. This computer equipment is necessary to link up with the department’s master system plan. That amount of R3,5 million is therefore the largest single component which we have not yet spent.

In regard to computers there are also bureaux for the Commission for Administration which will only come into operation on 1 April 1989 and for which we budget an amount. This represents an amount of R2,5 million which we are not paying because they only came into operation at a late stage. Those two amounts alone already give one a total of R6 million, which represents the major portion of this saving. I hope that answers the hon member’s question.

Mr Chairman, regarding Programme 2, which deals with ordinary school education and teacher training, I want first of all to pick up the point raised by the hon member for Pinelands in connection with the subsidy amounts to private schools. The direct question asked related to the increase in teachers’ salaries, which private schools will obviously have to grant too, and the fact that this increase will raise proportionately the total amount spent on the education of a child by this hon Minister’s department. Will the 45% or 15% subsidies represent a real increase in the total sum paid to those private schools from the beginning of this year, that is from 1 January?

The second question on Programme 2 concerns the wording in the explanatory memorandum, which reads:

I have no problem with that. We knew what the inflation rate was, the hon the Minister knew that there was going to be inflation and additional funds are required. He then goes on to say that by applying strict financial discipline, the extent of the additional funds required could be limited to R38,66 million. What was the sum that was initially required? What was the saving by applying strict financial discipline because the point that the department then goes on to make is that it is needed to finance shortages in respect of municipal services, transport costs, maintenance of buildings, replacement of worn-out equipment and the provision of food to hostels. I will discuss the last one in a moment but what it does not cover as far as I understand from what he said, is that it does not cover any increase of financial provision to the schools, what is called monetary allocation in Natal. This is money paid to a school in order to carry out its functions. So apart from the named services such as municipal services, transport, buildings which we can exclude and the replacement of worn-out equipment, no additional funds, as I understand it, have been granted to schools for them to meet their increase in prices. Can the hots the Minister give us a clear indication as to whether he is in fact viewing sympathetically the position of schools that are simply running out of money? He knows that that is the situation as we had a fairly long debate on that point last week. I will stop at that point since that concerns what I wanted to ask on Programme 2.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Pinetown for his thoughtfulness because he can ask so many questions that not even a wise man can answer them all them. [Interjections.] I want to try to reply to the hon member for Pinetown with regard to the 45% to the private schools. The hon member is correct. When there is an increase in teachers’ salaries at State schools, this means that private schools will battle because there is an additional amount that they must pay to their teachers. There is a factor of teachers’ salaries in the subsidy formula. That factor in the subsidy is adjusted so that it can be taken into account for private schools so that they will not lag behind in respect of the allocation that will be made to them.

I now want to come to the hon member who put a question a while ago about the 15% and the 45%. We have already debated this on a previous occasion. What we must remember is that we always have a limited source of funds. On the basis of specific criteria which have been agreed on by the various private school organisations and which apply in respect of 0%, when a private school does not apply, or 15% and 45%; there are certain criteria, and on the basis of these it is decided when, depending on the availability of funds, 15% or 45% can be given to a school. In practice it sometimes happens that a school qualifies for 45%, but because there are insufficient funds, one cannot arrive at 45%. This is the absolute exception. The hon member can rest assured of that. If the hon member asks me to explain this with regard to an individual school, I will not do so, because I am not prepared to play off private schools against one another in public. The hon member will agree with me on this. I am convinced of that.

The hon member for Pinetown, who raised the matter concerning the original saving, said that we had stated in the explanatory memorandum that owing to “tight administration” we had achieved a specific saving there and asked what the shortfall would have been if there had been no saving. If the hon member asks me precisely what it is, I can obviously not tell him. This is a very difficult calculation to make and give to the hon member. The information we wanted to convey was that we had received a directive or a request from the hon the Minister of Finance to save as much as possible without detracting from the quality and standard of education.

With that effort in mind—that is what we want to say—we still have a shortfall. It is very difficult to say that the shortfall would have been if we had not achieved this saving. I do not think it is possible to say this from the point of view of the appropriation.

What I can tell the hon member is that we of course sympathise with the schools. I want to tell the hon member, in consequence of the remark which the hon member made the other day, namely—if my memory is not playing me false, and the hon member can tell me if I am wrong— that the state contributes only 40% to the current expenditure of a school …

With the exception of the teachers’ salaries. That is the figure I have.

With the exception of the teachers’ salaries. Is that what the hon member said? I want to state categorically in the House that the hon member for Pinetown is quite wrong. [Interjections.]

The reason why the hon member is wrong is the following: If we were to calculate what it costs the State for argument’s sake to keep a secondary school child at school and we were for argument’s sake, to arrive at R3 000 and we then looked at the teachers’ salaries, this could possibly come to approximately R2 400. In other words, R600 remains, and this is the amount we then contribute per child to the current expenditure. If a school’s school fees total R40 per child per annum, this means that the parents’ contribution is only 2,5% of the State’s contribution. Of course I have made this calculation. There are private schools—I am aware of the fact that there are a few such private schools—where the school fees the children are required to pay, although it is not compulsory, total R900 per annum.

State schools!

No, not the State schools, I am referring to private schools. There may even be a State school, in exceptional cases—it is possible—which will charge R900 per child, but it is not compulsory. In that case the hon member could say that the school is contributing 60% to the current expending, excluding teachers’ salaries and the State only 40%. Firstly, the point is that this would be the absolute exception, on the basis of what I have just said. Secondly, if a parent contributes R900 per child in school fees, it is his business. It is not a compulsory contribution and this Government cannot therefore be accused of only paying 40% of the current expenditure, excluding teachers’ salaries, and the schools 60%. This may be the case in exceptional cases, under the conditions I have indicated.

Of course I sympathise with this. If we could get enough money to make more money available for education, we would do so with pleasure. What I want to state categorically here today is that the State will not evade its responsibility in respect of the making available of sufficient funds to maintain the quality and standard of education. However, the State is not in a position to give additional funds for luxuries. [Interjections.]

On the other hand, if a specific school feels that its parents are prepared to pay additional fees so that they can put up their standard even more, I have no difficulties with that. Recently we spoke about the matter of compulsory tuition fees and I told hon members we were looking into this in order to help the schools, because I realise that at the moment schools have a problem in respect of finance. Matters are no longer going as well as they used to be, although we are not lowering the standards. We will see whether we can find some or other solution in this regard. I think that is more or less what the hon member asked me.

Mr Chairman, I am open-mouthed at the hon the Minister’s response. [Interjections.] I will send him a copy of the Natal Education Council’s document where they have analysed something like 60 to 80 schools in Natal and averaged out the contributions of parents and of the State to the running costs of the school.

Will the hon member please give me that report?

I will certainly do so, though it is not my document.

Will the hon member please do that before the end of the month so that I can then respond to it?

Certainly, since the end of the month is likely to take place in under a few hours’ time … [Interjections.] … I will certainly do that.

The point I want to make is that that document itself cites a figure in no case higher than 38% of the current costs of a school—excluding teachers’ salaries. If one includes the costs of running the sports and educational facilities, like printing costs, telephones and so on, and adds them all together, that gives one the contribution picture.

I have listened to the hon the Minister talk about not buying luxuries from the school fund and all that and I agree with him one hundred per cent. The argument which the schools have today is that the parental contributions, which in the past may well have purchased luxuries, are today required to buy necessities. That is the point we are making. As the contribution of the State has not changed, the demand on the parents has become greater and greater. I do not want to pursue that argument here at great length until we have the actual documents in front of us, and we can do that in the hon the Minister’s Vote later this year.

I would now like to turn to Programme 3, University and Technikon Education, because here we have a similar situation. We have a marvellous statement which reads:“A surplus of R10 000 is attributed to an anticipated saving on administrative costs.”

The hon the Minister is well aware that the change in the A-formula at university level has meant that the universities have got less and less money. The hon the Minister of National Education was so good the other day as to answer a question in which he sets out the A-values for universities in South Africa during the 1987-88 financial years, indicating that 1989’s are coming as soon as the Budget is finalised.

The interesting point here is that if we take the eleven universities falling under this hon Minister’s control, ten show a decrease in A-values. I will tell hon members what a decrease in A-values on a subsidy makes. It means that those universities have and are going to receive less and less money. The only exception is Unisa, which is not one of the normal residential universities.

I understand that this hon Minister is sympathetic and feels that he would like to give the universities more, but simply cannot. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he is doing everything in his power to get funds for the universities while at the same time the universities’ funds are being cut. I can show a comparable picture of the technikons. I do not quite know what this hon Minister is doing, but under this hon Minister both technikons and universities have received proportionately less money for the past three years than they did the previous year. [Interjections.] That is the answer which this hon Minister has to give and now he can give it.

Mr Chairman, if I remember correctly the hon member said a while ago that he was open-mouthed with surprise when he listened to me, but I am speechless with surprise, because I always thought he was an intelligent member who knew how things worked. [Interjections.] Now the hon member wants to discuss the A factor and the allocation of funds with me, although he knows that this is not my responsibility, but that of my colleague the hon the Minister of National Education. Does the hon member know that? Of course he does! Now the hon member wants to quarrel with me about it. Of course the hon member is right when he says that I am striving to obtain the highest possible A value for institutions under my control, but I am not the person who allocates it. Within the limitations of the State finances it is not the hon the Minister of National Education who is simply being tight-fisted either. One must assess the entire matter in the light of the funds available for the administration of the entire country. I therefore do not want to argue about the A values any further, but I do want to tell the hon member that this programme—this is all it is concerned with; not the A values—concerns the decrease of R10 000 in administrative expenditure for travelling and subsistence expenses. I want to point this out to the hon member.

This programme is aimed at meeting the needs of academics and high-level professionals, by means of training at universities and technikons. This has been planned for in respect of travelling and subsistence costs for certain seminars, interviews, etc. There has been a saving on this for a number of reasons. In other respects we were on target with the appropriation. I thought the hon member would congratulate me on this.

Mr Chairman, if this hon Minister stands up and says he actually has no control over it anyway, then I certainly can say to him well done, because he has no control over it.

I think that it is more important to get answers on the areas over which, if one likes, he is prepared to say that he does have control.

Let us have a look at Programme 6, Children in need of care, a decrease of R30 000 due to savings on personnel expenditure. It was one of the areas of concern—the hon the Minister will be aware of this—that was voiced four or five years ago that the facilities for the children in need of care themselves required attention. We had the Van Loggerenberg Commission appointed to investigate. Can the hon the Minister give us an assurance, apart from this decrease, that he is satisfied that this particular part of the programme, which he is responsible for, is in fact receiving the funding that it did necessarily need two years ago and in fact is in a happy position today.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to be unkind to the hon member, but I could say that that has nothing to do with this appropriation. I do not need to talk about it, because it does not concern this appropriation. All the hon member can ask me about is the items indicated here. That is what the hon member can ask about, but let me tell the hon member that there is of course a need. I almost want to say that there will always be a need in any programme.

If the hon member asks me whether I am satisfied, I can say that on the basis of the availability of funds I am satisfied that the minimum standard is being maintained. I also want to say that under all circumstances I will always strive to acquire additional funds, also for these schools to which the hon member referred, because they are always needed, particularly there. The hon member is right. As regards this programme and the hon member’s reference to the decrease of R30 000, the same applies, as I explained to the hon member for Brits in connection with specialised and technical posts, namely the fact that they were only filled late resulted in there being a surplus.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 4—“Local Government, Housing and Works”:

Mr Chairman, I want to ask a few short questions about Programme 2. The CP thinks this is a very good programme. It proves that there is a tremendous need among young people to receive assistance with the interest they must pay on their home loans. However it is tragic, when one looks at the increase in this programme, to weigh it up against what is being pumped into other housing projects.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether we should deduce from this that this increase largely concerns the increase in interest rates, and what about the new entrants who have been admitted to the scheme since this report was compiled? The questions I want to ask the hon the Minister are, firstly, how much of this amount is intended for increases in interest rates, secondly, how much money is actually available for new applicants; and thirdly, how the hon the Minister intends to obtain more funds for this purpose.

I am only asking the hon the Minister a short question on Programme 4. After all, there were similar facilities in the previous dispensation; why must own affairs now make these purchases? Should it not have been financed from general affairs? My question is therefore how much money is being voted in each of the three subdivisions. The hon the Minister can lump these questions together because this is a question which can be replied to in a few words.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon member and I think that as regards Programme 4 my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works will reply, because in terms of the division of work that programme falls under my colleague.

May I say, as regards the first question concerning the rise in interest rates, this is a factor which is included in the increased amount being requested. I shall give the hon member the analysis, but this is nowhere near the dominant amount contributing to the increase. I can tell the hon member that by the end of December there were 360 221 participants in this scheme. In the last calendar year alone there were an additional 16 630 new entrants to the scheme. This is a scheme which is aimed at subsidising 33,33% of the monthly interest on the bond of first-time homebuyers and buyers of new houses.

Originally R14 900 000 was budgeted for. According to our calculations, with the entrants to this scheme, this will leave us with an obligation of R24 900 000 per annum if we take the increase in interest rates into account. From time to time, when interest rates rise, the interest rate for the purposes of the calculation of the subsidy is also increased. On 1 November 1988 the interest rate for calculation purposes was adjusted to 16% and this led to a contribution of R2 330 766 on our part. On 1 February 1989—for the remaining two months of this financial year—we adjusted the interest to 18% for the calculation of the contribution of 33,33% we must make. This contribution requires a further R170 160.

If I add the two figures together, the increase in the interest rate has an effect of approximately R2 590 026. Hon members will notice that the additional amount of R12 590 026 we are requesting includes approximately R10 million for new entrants. We are financing this by way of application. If a person qualifies, there is at present no restriction on admittance to the scheme. If a person qualifies as a first-time home-buyer of a new house, the cost of which does not exceed R65 000, and in exceptional cases R75 000, we automatically pay the subsidy without placing a restriction on it.

Obviously we budget every year for the expected entrants to the scheme—I do not know whether the hon member is paying attention to my answer—but this is not always possible to predict accurately in advance, because it depends on the intention of people to acquire new homes for themselves. The scheme was adjusted on 1 August 1988. Whereas it was initially only for the building of a house, excluding the price of the plot, from 1 August the plot has been part of the package, with a maximum of R65 000, and in exceptional cases, R75 000. I think that I have now answered all the questions.

Mr Chairman, under Vote 4 I want to ask the hon the Minister a few questions regarding Programme 5. This concerns the provision of buildings, structures and equipment. There is an increase of R16,1 million. This falls under five headings, listed from (a) to (e). This concerns inter alia rent, maintenance, occupation, office furniture, protection of accommodation and the improvement of living conditions.

Will the hon the Minister give us the amount for each of the five subheadings separately? Under point (e) will he also specify for us the amount for protection of accommodation and the amount for improvement of living conditions of employees of other population groups within the Administration: House of Assembly?

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to indicate that the fourth and fifth questions of the hon member fall within the sphere of responsibility of the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works. He will reply to them.

Mr Chairman, as regards one of the questions, the hon member for Pinelands asked the same question, namely why provision was being made in our appropriation for non-Whites. The answer is very simple. This concerns labourers on farms where research is being undertaken and where the accommodation of the farm labourers and workers has been upgraded. This is therefore a very simple answer which I can given to this question.

The other question to which I want to reply under Programme 4, is the one concerning the funds. This is what the hon member wanted to know. I hope I understood him correctly. He wants to know how we finance the purchase of these buildings. It is very simple. In our normal negotiating procedure we either receive an allocation from the Treasury or, if it is a matter of urgency, we can approach them on an ad hoc basis or we can finance the purchase of the building from our own surpluses or savings on our revenue account, which is totally at our discretion. We can do what we like with it.

I am grateful that the hon member for Middelburg also mentioned Programme 4, because this affords me an opportunity to give the House more information on this. Since the publication of this explanatory memorandum further information has come to my disposal which may interest hon members. This concerns the expenditure of R6 million which we set aside for the possible purchase of a building for the people of the SA Cultural History Museum here in Cape Town.

I can tell the hon member that we have now bought that building. We bought the building for an amount of R5,5 million. This is therefore R500 000 less than we initially envisaged. The building is intended to facilitate the activities of the Cultural History Museum, which falls under the Department of Education and Culture and which is at the moment accommodated in the Old Supreme Court here in Cape Town. They have a tremendous shortage of space. In the courtyard of the building itself there are wooden structures in which the staff are accommodated. They have such piles of documents and other papers that they cannot exhibit anything. They are finding it difficult to carry on with their activities. They have been looking for suitable accommodation for the past 13 years now to meet their needs.

I can tell the House that we have bought the old National Mutual building, diagonally opposite the Old Supreme Court on Church Square. It is just across the road from the Groote Kerk.

†It is a very beautiful old historic building, designed by Sir Herbert Baker in 1905. It is one of the old landmarks of Cape Town—a building which dominates Church Square. Therefore it is also of great architectural value. The fact that we could bring that building into public ownership now means that we can safeguard the whole ambience of this historically very important square, which also falls within our own Parliamentary precinct. That allows us—where the staff of the National Cultural History Museum will now occupy that building—to follow our declared intention, viz to use important landmark buildings for practical purposes. By doing so as far as possible we are actually able to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand we protect the particular building while, on the other hand, we also put it to practical use.

I can tell the hon members that we tried to negotiate with the former owners of the building in order to try to lease the building. This, however, was not possible. The owners were not prepared to do this. As a result we had to acquire the building. That was done. I have a fairly comprehensive Press statement in relation to this matter, which I can also make available to the hon member.

*The hon member for Witbank spoke about deaf people. I think I have already replied to that. I do not quite remember what the hon member’s other questions were about. If there are any more questions I shall try to reply to them.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 6—“Improvement of Conditions of Service”:

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister to which State department the largest allocation was made with regard to the improvement of conditions of service. Secondly, I want to ask him whether he can indicate how many resignations there were from these State departments before the announcement of the improvement of conditions of service. How does this figure compare with the number of resignations last year?

Mr Chairman, I wrote the hon member’s question down, but I do not have the details he requested to hand. I shall gladly give him the answers later today or even tomorrow, if possible, as soon as I have extracted the details.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the following question: Does this programme include the funding of pensionable amounts?

Mr Chairman, this programme purely covers wages and salaries of this administration in toto. [Interjection.] Absolutely! If it affects the employees, yes. If it affects social pensioners, it is done.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 7—“Welfare”:

Mr Chairman, under Programme 6 on page 13 of the explanatory memorandum mention is made of the fact that due to the decrease in the number of persons participating in the social relief schemes it was possible to effect a saving of R4 million under this programme. I should have liked to have had more details about this, because it is difficult to conceive that such a large saving could have taken place under this item when we bear in mind the increasingly difficult social conditions of our people.

Mr Chairman, this is naturally determined by the number of applications we receive. We budgeted for more applications and we also took economic conditions into account. The fact that there was a saving of approximately R4 million clearly shows that we did not receive the expected number of applications.

It is also true that many other funds, particularly the Emergency Relief Fund and the Disaster Fund, have come into being and that these funds have also made large contributions in those areas that were in need of relief. The result of this was that applications for assistance were not addressed to us. The simple answer is that we have dealt with the number of applications which we received, including those received at our service and regional offices. At this stage there are no more applications.

Mr Chairman, under Programme 2—“Care of the Aged”, there is basically no increase in the expense for the care of the aged and I would like to ask the hon the Minister, with the rapid increase in the number of the aged in our community, is his department planning to take over some or most of the many Government White beds in hospitals? If so, are any of these beds already being utilised or not?

Mr Chairman, we are engaged in a thorough investigation. We shall only be taking over the hospitals to which the hon member referred on 1 April, at the beginning of the new financial year. We are aware of the large number of empty beds in these White hospitals, as well as the tremendous demand that exists among the infirm aged. We therefore envisage using these beds for that purpose, if this is at all possible. We therefore want to convert empty wards, and in this regard I could refer to a hospital such as Kempton Park, for example, so that we may accommodate our infirm aged. The hon member, being a medical man himself, will appreciate that this is not so easy, because we also do not want to place the aged in a hospital atmosphere. We must therefore look to those circumstances as well, but we do, in fact, envisage doing this.

Debate concluded.

Vote No 8—“Health Services”:

Mr Chairman, in a way what I have to say is related to the previous point but I first want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Health Services and the officials involved for keeping to the April 1 deadline for the transfer of the 43 White own affairs hospitals to the Administration: House of Assembly, in spite of the many administrative difficulties. There has been a great deal of uncertainty about the future of these hospitals, particularly in the Transvaal where 31 of the hospitals are situated. Now this uncertainty has become a thing of the past, thanks to the sound administrative efforts that have been made.

If the hospital in my constituency, the South Rand Hospital, is anything to go by, the CP have done their best to exploit this uncertainty by spreading disinformation about the future of these hospitals for their own political ends. As an example I would like to read an article which appeared last week in that frightful propaganda sheet, the Patriot.

You have the wrong paper. Beeld is the frightful propaganda sheet.

On page 11, column 89, of the issue of 17 February there is a heading that reads “Rosettenville hospital to be opened?” The article reads as follows:

I do not know about the report on Dr Motlana. I have not been able to locate it. But I have not even received a telephone message from the Patriot, so I do not think they tried very hard to contact me. Anyway, now they can report directly on my standpoint and that of the hon the Minister concerned. I want to assure hon members and especially members of the CP that they are barking up the wrong tree.

I have been on the board of the South Rand Hospital for the past 4½ years. As soon as it became evident that there was spare capacity at the South Rand Hospital, we commenced with negotiations with the provincial administration to convert the vacant wards to a frail care centre. There is a great need for this facility in the area as there are half a dozen long-established old age homes in the southern suburbs, accommodating well in excess of 1 000 old people. Because many of them were built many years ago there are minimal or non-existent frail care facilities.

In the course of the past two years both the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development and, more recently, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, our own affairs Minister, visited the hospital at my invitation. We have been given unequivocal assurances that the frail care centre at the hospital will go ahead. Perhaps the hon the Minister could confirm this to the hon members of the Official Opposition to set their minds at rest, once and for all.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask something with regard to Programme 2— “Medical care”. The substantial amount of R12,7 million is being additionally appropriated with regard to the taking-over of pharmaceutical services from the Transvaal Provincial Administration. I should just like to know in more detail what pharmaceutical services were taken over from the provincial administration.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to react to the hon member for Rosettenville, who quoted from a document of the CP, in which they were very clearly indulging in disinformation. [Interjections.] As the hon the Minister said here, we are urgently looking at the question of unutilised beds, which is really an embarrassment to us at this stage. We want to convert this embarrassment into an opportunity and for that reason we are going to launch extremely thorough and cautious investigations.

I can tell hon members that with regard to the investigations, our department and the Department of National Health have now also received the assistance of two members of the Commission for Administration, which is in charge of privatisation and which is participating in this investigation programme.

On occasion we visited the South Rand Hospital, to which reference has been made. We have never yet received any request from Dr Mothlana that we place that hospital at the disposal of Black patients; in fact, we have many patients who can be accommodated there. At the moment, the programme and the nature of the investigation has progressed to such an extent that we are doing surveys in conjunction with the Johannesburg city council with regard to those infirm aged who are at present living in old-age homes, but who actually belong in a hospital, and with regard to those infirm aged who are still in the community, but who should rather be admitted to hospital. The idea is to use four of the wards, which contain a total of 100 beds, for the accommodation of the infirm aged in the near future, when that investigation has been completed and the necessary arrangements have been made in that regard. I can therefore tell the hon member for Rosettenville that the story of the CP is simply their usual disinformation.

The following question deals with the pharmaceutical services. These are services which were transferred from the provinces. This is therefore not an additional expenditure which has been budgeted for, but it must be projected or indicated in a budget. Therefore, these are services which have already been budgeted for and which are now merely being transferred and which are not reflected in this appropriation.

Mr Chairman, I would like to refer to Programme 1—“Administration”. It is the function of the hon the Minister’s department to administer private hospitals and I would like to ask the hon the Minister a few questions about this part of his responsibility.

In 1987 there were 76 private hospitals and 68 unattached theatre units, a total of 139, with 9 049 beds. That year ten new hospitals and 15 extensions were being built and half a million surgical procedures were done in private hospitals. These private hospitals of course cover a wide spectrum and the hon the Minister will agree with me that they use these departments in private hospitals to deal with the care of tuberculosis patients, psychiatric patients and the elderly. In addition I would like to refer specifically to private hospitals where we have a tremendous amount of curative medicine done which is private and costs quite a high fee.

In his annual report last year the hon the Minister advised us that there was a joint advisory committee for private hospitals established in October 1987 and that this committee would give attention to norms and standards, privatisation, the training of health care workers, statistics and information and the monitoring and evaluation of services. Therefore my first question to the hon the Minister would be about the fact that during the past year there has still been this unbelievable increase in private hospitals and private hospital beds. I would like to ask the hon the Minister about the privatisation of our hospitals and health care. What is the joint advisory committee doing? Is it now the policy of his department to open on application as many private hospitals in South Africa as apply and as many beds as possible? With the privatisation of South Africa’s health care, which is Government policy, there is now great concern being expressed about the escalating cost of our health care and more and more people find it difficult to afford private hospitals.

In addition the Government, due to its racial policy, has not enough money to care for its public sector hospitals. We hear that its own hospitals, the provincial hospitals, are becoming emptier and emptier. Many staff members have been taken away from the public sector to the private sector due to this, and therefore it quite often happens that a patient goes to a public hospital and is turned away because he belongs to a medical scheme. He is not admitted and is sent away to a private hospital.

I do not need to remind the hon the Minister that there is a great problem at present between the private hospitals and the medical schemes, and the public are having to pay more and more. I would like to ask the hon the Minister first—if I have time left I will ask him further questions— about this joint advisory committee. What are the plans for privatisation in the hospitals? Are they still going to continue building more hospitals and providing more beds? In what way is the hon the Minister’s department going to ensure that a patient who is ill will either be admitted to a private hospital and be able to afford what he is charged or, if he has been sent to a Government hospital, be accepted there?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parktown has certainly touched on a very sensitive and important issue. I think that during the debate on our Vote we shall have an opportunity to pay more attention to it.

It is not the policy of the Government or of our department to approve each and every application for a separate operation unit, day hospital or private hospital. The fact remains that the private hospital industry is here to stay. There is no question about it, and it meets an enormous need for the provision of first-rate health services.

When we talk about privatisation, we are actually attempting to involve both the State and the private sector in the provision of health services, especially on the curative level. It is, however, not the policy of our department to grant its approval in each and every case. There are clear norms and parameters which we apply prior to approving those applications. There is also a right of appeal, of course. People often come to our offices to lodge an appeal.

I just want to ask the hon member for Parktown to help us with the problem of the privatisation of health services. I think we must forget all about the idea of privatising health services. In fact Dr Wim de Villiers was specifically instructed—we are waiting for that report and I think that it is going to be an exciting report once it has been tabled—not to look only at the privatisation of hospital services per se. The idea is to provide market-orientated health services in this country, because we cannot afford to privatise in the usual sense of the word. Then people would not be able to afford it. We are looking for an affordable health service, and that is in fact what Dr Wim de Villiers is investigating. We hope to have a clearer indication of his findings, not at the time of the coming Budget but in the very near future.

As the hon member correctly remarked, we have the problem that nursing staff are being drawn to the private institutions. This is part of the reason why some of the State hospital wards have been closed, but we must keep in mind that it is not the most important reason. The most important reason for the empty beds and wards in State hospitals is financial. There is no money to pay nurses to staff these wards. The patients and the nurses are there and we are indeed experiencing problems in certain areas in Johannesburg, especially where there are many private hospitals, because in those areas a particularly large number of nurses are being lured to the private hospitals. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is difficult to talk to the hon the Minister now, because he no longer has any time available. It is going to be difficult. I will have to do the talking myself.

Talk to yourself.

That would be more sensible than talking to the hon member. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister that when we talk about the investigation by Dr Wim de Villiers, the privatisation of hospitals and medical services in South Africa is already an accomplished fact. The hon the Minister will no longer be able to prevent it. There has been such an explosion of this in recent times under the hon the Minister’s policy that one of the of the reasons why so many White hospital beds are empty, is because people are going to private hospitals. If the hon the Minister wants to compete, he must create the facilities which are available in private hospitals. Nowadays, high technology equipment is only available in private hospitals in South Africa. One no longer finds it in the State hospitals. That is why I am saying that the hon the Minister cannot stop privatisation. Eight years ago, medical schemes paid out more than R1 billion to private hospitals, and today they are paying out R3 billion. That is the degree to which the amount has increased in only a few years. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether the ad hoc committee which he appointed is dealing with the training of nurses. The fact is that training must be done in the private sector as well in order to assist in the total arena of health services in South Africa. The private sector must not only provide treatment, but also the training and opportunities that are necessary for progress. [Time expired.]

Debate concluded.

Votes and Schedule agreed to.

Second Reading debate

Mr Chairman, it struck me this afternoon that with the exception of the hon member for Gezina and another charming member of the governing party, the NP members showed no interest whatsoever in this debate. [Interjections.] This is understandable because there are other matters which must be weighing heavily upon them at the moment. The question these days is whether and when.

What is going on here? Who is governing the country at the moment? Is it the hon the Minister of National Education or is it the hon the State President? These are matters about which the NP should rightly be concerned. [Interjections.]

It has now become a habit of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture to announce certain election results to us in this House. I find it quite strange that he did not avail himself of the opportunity today to announce the results of the election which took place at Ermelo yesterday. There the parents of the school in Ermelo decided, after the NP had decided to politicise the management board of the Pietersburg school, that all the Nationalists …

And the Broeders?

I do not know. Some of them may well be Broeders. If I knew, I would say who they were. The parents of that school decided to rid themselves in toto of those eight representatives of the NP who had sat on the board.

We are quite rightly concerned about agriculture and also rightly concerned “for the umpteenth time” about what effect the latest measures of the Reserve Bank and those of the hon the Minister of Finance with regard to interest rates are going to have on agriculture.

The hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply has already referred to the fact that the increasing interest rates will have an effect on the interest subsidies which agriculture is receiving at present. I must point out, however, that it is only a certain category of farmers who qualify for those subsidies. A real danger exists today that the other farmers, who do not qualify at present for an interest subsidy, and who in any event do not require it at the moment, may possibly qualify within the near future as a result of interest rates which they are having to pay in the private sector, which the agricultural industry simply cannot afford. I think it is common knowledge that the current interest rate pattern is not acceptable to the agricultural industry, because the profit margin in agriculture simply cannot support it.

What I am particularly concerned about, is the fact that whereas in the past the Land Bank had reasonably cheap capital at its disposal to provide to the agricultural industry, this has fallen away, so to speak, with effect from last year. Soon the Land Bank will also be obliged to once again increase its long-term interest rates on Land Bank bonds. We saw the increase when it rose within the space of a few years from 8%, in the case of the Land Bank, to 15,5% and 16%. It is now quite probably going to rise once again.

We want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply—we hope he will pay heed to it—to make an input regarding the hon the Minister of Finance’s budget for the coming financial year. He will have to take a serious look at the position of agriculture insofar as interest rates are concerned. I want to repeat that the farmers are going to get into difficulties, and this will not be of their own doing. People are now having to pay high interest rates in order to help to keep the extravagance of other sectors of the economy in check, whilst they themselves have had no part in this.

Finally, I just want to point out that the argument that one needs to keep interest rates high in order to compensate for inflation, is an argument, but it is not the answer. The answer may well be that one will have to look at taxation on interest earned. By introducing a change in this respect, one may perhaps encourage the general public— the individual—to save without drastically increasing interest rates.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank all the hon members who participated in this debate during the past few hours very sincerely for their interest and particularly for the study one could see they had put into it, and also for the questions that were asked.

I do not think the hon member for Barberton is one of those people who was terribly interested in the appropriation itself, but towards the end he made a few points here which were very important. I think we share his concern about interest rates, but he must realise that interest rates are not anything we can or should or want to manipulate. That is the last thing we can or must do. I think what we can do we have done here today, and that is to display the greatest degree of discipline possible.

From the nature of things we are not only people who render services, but in the first place we ourselves are also taxpayers. We are aware that all excessive or increased expenditure means that someone ultimately has to pay for it. We know that the taxpayer is pre-eminently the person who has to pay for it.

†What is absolutely true about what the hon member for Barberton has said, is that there are real dangers ahead. This economy is strong. There is confidence. We are going along smoothly but the ice is not all that thick. We have to be very careful indeed, particularly as we enter a period when we do not know what the gold price is going to do.

This makes it very difficult to plan. It would be a brave man who would make any prediction on the gold price. All one can say is that we have done very well in the past year. The resilience of the economy has been magnificent if one considers last year’s exports, of which only 6,5% were required to finance interest on our total foreign debt. When one considers that the corresponding figure for the Western Hemisphere countries is 30%, it gives one some idea of the magnificence of the South African economy. Stated as a percentage of our exports, roughly one year’s exports would wipe out our total foreign debt. If one again compares this to Western Hemisphere countries, one would find that they require about 300% of their exports to wipe out their foreign debt. This again shows that we are underborrowed. We are lean, trim, growing and expanding, our confidence has returned and we are increasing our capacity to export.

However, having said all those good things, the amber lights are blinking and telling us to go carefully, not to take any chances, to apply maximum discipline and not to listen to the political or economic advisers of the hon the leader of the PFP, not to listen to the socialists such as Sampie Terreblanche.

*We must not listen to the people who want to call the tune.

†We must continue on the road which we know to be successful, which means, wherever possible, smaller government, lower Government expenditure, tighter control, the shifting of opportunities to the private sector as we are doing; with deregulation and privatisation and all of the other programmes this Government has. [Interjections.]

I do share the hon member’s real concern for the interest rates and the impact of these rates on agriculture. We know that that can be devastating and we are as concerned as he is, which is why it is so important for us now to be doing the right things and not the wrong things, to be taking the long view instead of the short view and to be seeking maximum co-operation.

I think that consensus on economic matters in South Africa is important. We should not make these things a matter of division in our country. It is very encouraging to have seen a certain amount of consensus arising from our deeply divided society over the past couple of years. On the question of sanctions, for example, consensus has been reached that sanctions are bad for the progress of the nation in every respect and for all its people as a whole. We should seek to achieve maximum financial consensus and all work together, whatever our political differences, to achieve maximum growth so that we may have a successful economy which can underpin whichever society we are in transition toward. It would be a brave man who would tell me that this society is not or should not be in transition to higher standards and forms of government.

This Budget endorses the Government’s economic policy and has given further impetus and credibility to it. For this I thank the Director-General, the officials of the Ministries concerned and all my colleagues in the various departments.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, allow me first of all to thank the department very much for the wonderful preparation they have done with regard to the memorandums on both of these Bills. I think they have done a very neat and comprehensive job of work.

The Agricultural Pests Amendment Bill has, to a certain extent, become a necessity, particularly after the report of the Klopper Commission, RP 88 of 1987, so that control over the importation of propagating material could be intensified and the risk of the introduction of foreign agricultural pests into the Republic reduced.

The illegal importation of certain vine propagating material has exposed the deficiencies in the Act, and for this reason attention is devoted in clauses 1, 4 and 10 to certain concepts, such as importation, who is involved in this and who may be regarded as importers, so that legal action may be taken against these people. In this way it will now also be possible to take action against people who are in possession or control of illegally imported goods, and the penalties for this offence have also been increased.

I want to express my gratitude for the fact that control measures have now been instituted with regard to red-billed quelea, so that they may be combated. In the past I have placed a question on the Question Paper in this regard, and I am very grateful for this. There is a great deal of wheat being cultivated under irrigation today on the Highveld and in other areas. These red-billed quelea are birds which really inflict tremendous damage on our standing crops.

They are just like the Nationalists.

They breed just as quickly, but they do not die as quickly. Whilst all of us probably wish to preserve our fauna and flora, this pest has assumed dimensions which have demanded urgent attention. This is in line with the position in respect of flying locusts and the method of instituting a successful combating programme.

Now that is Hendrik Schoeman!

Since that hon member has just made a remark about Hendrik Schoeman, I must simply be permitted to say that I expect that Hendrik Schoeman will return because he is no longer able to appear on Spies en Plessie, and because the Weather Bureau no longer takes much notice of his weather forecasts either. [Interjections.] I think the most serious reason why he will return—I think this will make everyone tremble—is the fact that he will probably have to come and explain to this House what gave rise to the R3,119 billion foreign exchange loss while he was Minister of that department. [Interjections.]

In line with the position in respect of flying locusts and in order to institute successful combating actions, clause 6 now makes it compulsory for enforceable action to be imposed against users of land who fail to report the roosting or breeding places of red-billed quelea.

Perhaps this a fitting moment for me to express our concern at the enormous damage which termites are inflicting on our pastures. Perhaps the department should attempt to ascertain for us, if this has not already been done, how much the actual damage caused by termites amounts to. I was unable to find a heading anywhere in the definitions in the Bill under which termites could be included. I ask whether the hon the Deputy Minister could possibly look into this for us.

I do not wish to say much more about this Bill, except that we shall support it. If I may be permitted to do so, however, I should like to express my concern, with reference to this amending Bill, about a matter which is basically very closely related to it. It is the illegal trading which is taking place in contraband from other countries, such as South American countries, for example, with regard to the illegal importation of semen. The matter to which I am now referring certainly deserves very serious attention, particularly if we look at the far-reaching consequences in terms of stock diseases, and so on, which this malpractice could result in. I had the privilege last year of visiting certain of these countries. I was pleasantly surprised at what I saw there, particularly with regard to the Al stations. South Africa will definitely be able to tremendously expand the genetic pool for a specific breed of cattle which has made an enormous contribution to the meat industry in our country, particularly with regard to cross-breeding. The stock breeders’ association concerned is devoting a great deal of attention to the aforementioned matter at the present moment. I should be pleased if finality could be reached quickly in this regard. I know that legislation exists. I am aware of all the measures. I ask the hon the Deputy Minister to take another look at this, aside from the Agricultural Pests Amendment Bill, which we also support.

Mr Chairman, I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon member for Delmas and his party for their support of this legislation. The hon member even mentioned termites and ants. The only things lacking were locusts and CPs. I want to ask the hon the Minister if he will not allow the import of semen quickly, because if I look around me I am convinced that we shall succeed in breeding a few if the hon the Minister will allow it. [Interjections.]

Order!

The amending Bill comprises a large number of matters which are of great importance for certain regions of our country and especially for certain agriculturists. I do not want to go into all aspects of the Bill. I shall gladly leave certain aspects for other members.

Allow me, as the hon member for Delmas did, to refer to the findings and recommendations of the Klopper Commission. I wish to refer to the clauses originating from the recommendations of the Klopper Commission. It is mainly clause 4, but there are also others which have a bearing on and can be linked to clause 4, like clause 1 (e), 3, 10 and a portion of clause 11.1 am glad that the hon member for Delmas referred to it because now I accept that he does not know much about a grape-vine. Both of us have enough knowledge of the final product.

This amending Bill was proposed as a result of the unfortunate incident whereby certain people imported so-called Chardonnay which proved in the end to be auxerrois. It looks like Chardonnay but the experts are of the opinion that it makes an inferior wine. We really do not need it in South Africa.

Apart from the fact that these smugglers who bring in the material place a query mark over the cultivar authenticity, it causes a great many problems on the one hand and on the other it also has extremely dangerous consequences. The first problem lies in the various ways in which this material is brought in secretly. It is multiplied quietly and sold in the same way. In the end nobody knows who the smuggler is anymore. These incidents occurred due to the lack of control. I must admit that control at harbours and airports is very difficult. I want to state that the people who bring these things in do it for personal gain. They smuggle it in in every conceivable manner—in shoes and in handbags, wrapped up in underwear; in every possible way the hon members can think of. If afterwards it proves that it is not an authentic cultivar, heavy financial losses are incurred because the farmers who planted it must destroy these grape-vines, vineyards and plantations and replace them at considerable cost. This specific farmer then has no one against whom he can institute a claim. The origin is unknown.

This dangerous situation places a heavy burden on the shoulders of the growers. In my constituency—and this I am very proud of—there is a wine-growers’ association which in my opinion is the best in the wine-growing industry. That industry is prosperous. They make money, but not one of these farmers can afford any claims that are instituted as a result of illegal material.

What I find to be far worse, Mr Chairman, are the pests, plagues and diseases which are imported. Of course I must say that if one considers the matter, I am convinced that we brought a great many of these diseases into South Africa over the years. Unfortunately one cannot prove a statement like this. Nevertheless I am convinced thereof. All these things happened to the advantage of no one except the short-term advantage of the smuggler.

Now many reasons are being given for this. It is being said that the processes by which the things are imported are too lengthy. This is partially true. Nevertheless I want to say that the processes are at present being improved. In the end it is still the correct official way of doing it. This method will in any case always take longer than that of the smugglers. What I should like to see is that this excuse will no longer be acceptable in future.

In this whole matter it is the financial advantages for the one who brought it in, which is of the utmost importance. I cannot imagine that anyone who brings in this kind of thing will follow this course of action for South Africa and only for South Africa. That is rubbish!

That is why it pleases me to be able to say that the penalties have been made harsher. If these people are caught they can now be punished properly. Action can also be taken quickly and more effectively, especially as is spelt out in clause 4.

On behalf of our whole industry and in particular on behalf of the wine industry, I wish to thank the Government for the action taken in this respect. Now we can really put an end to this kind of practice because these people do it solely for their own gain and not to anyone else’s advantage.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Wellington mentioned the episode of the illegal importation of Chardonnay. I must tell that hon member that I am very grateful that those people acted illegally because having introduced Chardonnay into South Africa they have introduced a wine that is very well suited to our circumstances here, from which, no doubt, we will benefit in every possible way in the future. This measure is specifically devoted to agricultural pests, and Chardonnay cannot be described as an agricultural pest. [Interjections.]

Undoubtedly, Sir, certain illegal imports of vines can carry pests, and obviously one has to take action against this. The Commission of Inquiry into the Cultivar Purity and Illegal Importation of Certain Vine Propagating Material—that is the Klopper Commission—has already been referred to. That commission made its recommendations with a view to the better control over the importation of such materials in order to control pests.

This Bill is primarily directed towards executing the recommendations of that commission.

Furthermore, Sir, the Bill gives statutory authority for the combating of red-billed quelea.

On the subject of vines, the provision for the control of importation of vines firstly defines the meaning of the word “import”. Evidently there was some uncertainty about the interpretation of that word. In terms of this Bill—I refer to the proposed new section 1 (d)—“import” is understood to mean:

This term is now defined in order to obviate any ambiguity around the ordinary grammatical meaning of the word, which evidently existed before. The Bill further clarifies the right of an executive officer appointed by the Minister and also enables certain powers and duties of the executive officer to be privatised and carried out by juristic persons. A comparable situation exists in the cotton industry, where a juristic person—in this instance the Cotton Board—can undertake certain tasks. This can now also be done in the field of viniculture in that a juristic person could perform certain control functions such as, for example, actually destroying legally imported vines.

When one comes to the provisions in the Bill relating to red-billed quelea this places an obligation on land users to notify the department when roosting or breeding swarms of quelea are present on their land.

Red-billed quelea.

Yes, red-billed quelea. The hon member just clarifies in my mind precisely what type of quelea we are talking about.

They are interesting birds. There are parts of Africa where they occur in millions. Huge swarms land on branches, frequently over water, and these branches are then so heavily overladen that the birds fall into the water and the crocodiles wait underneath to feed on the birds. [Interjections.]

This has a sort of political connotation. One can imagine these little red-billed creatures sitting on the branches and underneath the “groot krokodil” waits for them to fall into his mouth like parliamentary gravy! [Interjections.] We have examples in the political field! [Interjections.]

We come back to these birds and to more serious considerations like combating them. The combating of these birds can be carried out by persons other than by the State with the authorisation of the Minister. The intention behind it is to phase out State responsibility for combating this pest and leave it to the landowners concerned. All in all, this Bill is a highly technical one. We have no quarrel with it at all and we will support it through all its stages. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am grateful that the hon member for Bryanston supports this legislation. However, I cannot agree with him that we must condone smuggling under this legislation. As a result of that smuggling we can import a great many more pests which would far outweigh the advantages of those cuttings he referred to. [Interjections.]

Actually I want to concentrate solely on clause 5 which was also referred to by the previous speakers. It deals with the presence of the red-billed quelea and locusts which has to be reported by the owners. Previously it was so that the owners of the land upon which locusts appeared, had to report it to the magistrate, but this Bill stipulates that landowners are also obliged to report the presence of red-billed quelea. A description must also be given of precisely where these quelea are to be found. The new section also makes provision for the reporting of the roosting and breeding places of these swarms of red-billed quelea.

The State has been involved in the combating of red-billed quelea since 1953. However, problems have been experienced because the authorities did not always know where these swarms were to be found, and that is why it became imperative to implement this Bill in order to improve control. The pests mainly occur in the grain-producing areas of Northern Natal, Northern Free State and the Eastern and Western Transvaal and some areas of the Springbok Flats. At present large concentrations have been reported at Leandra in the Eastern Transvaal, Schweizer-Reneke in the Western Transvaal and Heilbron in the Free State. The quelea plague is actually worse when we have such high rainfall periods as we have experienced during the past two years, because these quelea come mainly from the swamp areas of Botswana.

Breeding flocks are usually found on 50 to 60 ha areas, whereas roosting flocks are found on 3 to 4 ha. A red-billed quelea is only a tiny thing … [Interjections.] I am speaking about a red-billed quelea. [Interjections.] It only weighs approximately 18 grams, but when it feeds its young it only eats the soft dough of the sorghum or com grains. It then causes damage which is equivalent to more than twice its own weight! This means that 1 million quelea can devour up to 36 tons of grain per day. If one keeps in mind that more than 30 million quelea are destroyed annually, you realise the magnitude of this pest and how necessary it is that legislation be accepted in this regard. It is so that 30 million quelea can destroy up to 1 000 tons of grain, which is still in the formative stage, per day.

Section 8 of the principal Act is being with regard to the powers of the Minister, so that red-billed quelea, just as locusts, are included. Furthermore, provision is being made for the authorities’ involvement in the combating of red-billed quelea to be phased out because it only affects small grain farmers in the summer rainfall areas.

This necessitates an alternative organisation which will be vested with the necessary authority to take over the State’s control function in an orderly manner. The hon the Minister may therefore authorise a person or organisation to combat quelea at their own expense.

Quelea roost and breed in the stock farming areas and mine property and then do damage to other places. This also goes for our National Parks. The intention of this legislation is to attempt, in the case of these sensitive areas, to address the problem by means of negotiation. I gladly support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to say that the reference of the hon member for Bryanston to the quelea falling from the trees into the mouths of the crocodiles, is reminiscent of the wily trout that is being tempted to take a fly from an equally wily angler.

I wish to make various comments regarding the Bill before us. I think one has to bear in mind and accept that the need to apply more stringent measures in the application of control over the importation of propagating material is essential.

I must point out that the dangers of introducing or spreading disease through the indiscriminate importation of cultivars can hold serious consequences for the agricultural sector. This must not be underestimated. To prevent any possibility of this occurring it is therefore of the utmost importance that strict control be applied.

On the other hand, I must point out to the hon the Deputy Minister who is handling this Bill that control measures must not be applied to the degree that they inhibit the importation of material which could be of benefit to the agricultural sector and which could lead to the ultimate propagation of varieties that would enhance the productivity of certain existing strains.

It may even be necessary from time to time to review, in the process, the basis on which import applications are considered in order to ensure that the developments in plant propagation in this country are in line with the requirements of particular sectors of the industry. There could be instances where the local plant varieties have degenerated to such a degree that a need exists to regenerate these with the introduction of imported material.

Measures contained in clause 2 clearly pave the way for the privatisation of certain functions of an executive officer through the delegation of powers to a person who is not an official of the department. I support this concept but again I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to take note of the manner in which the Cotton Board has carried out certain functions with regard to the destruction of ratoon cotton. I would put it to the hon the Deputy Minister that he also give consideration to extending powers to certain co-operatives, which may be ideally positioned to carry out certain functions in a particular sphere.

The only point I would like to make regarding the incidence of red-billed quelea and the obligation on users of land to report the presence of these birds, is the possible intention of the State to privatise their extermination. I must warn that the State’s withdrawal from the physical aspects of the extermination exercise may lead to the less effective control of this pest in the long term.

With these comments, I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful for the support this Bill is enjoying. I find it quite strange, because being known as “Kraai”, or “Crow”, I have no problem in identifying redbilled quelea. [Interjections.] I can nevertheless quite understand that there are some hon members in this House who do have a problem with that. The interesting idea was also advanced here that the red-billed quelea should go and sit in the trees and that the crocodiles should lie in wait for them below. Well, yes, in a certain sense one is attempting to eradicate the red-billed quelea. That immediately made me think of the story we often have in the House, namely that there are some birds which simply fall directly into the crocodile’s mouth because they thought there was a tree there, whereas there was not. [Interjections.]

The crocodiles have caught the Nationalists! [Interjections.]

I am grateful for the fact that the hon member for Delmas supports this Bill, and for the remark he made regarding the preparation of the memorandum. I think the officials have really done a fine job of work and that they have set it out in a clear manner. This attests to the high calibre of the officials in our department. [Interjections.] They have done a very fine job of work.

I agree with him that there is some concern regarding the question of termites. The department is doing some research in this regard. Some of the research has also been contracted out to the universities. I agree that the problem is becoming serious and that we shall have to look into it.

The hon member and other hon members also referred to flying locusts. In this regard I just want to make one or two remarks which I think the House will find interesting. We control locusts in terms of the principal Act. We expected an outbreak of locusts after the drought and we attempted to make the necessary preparations in order to be ready with the necessary poison and equipment. From September 1988 to February 1989—that is over six months—we have killed a total of 30 148 swarms of hoppers and 1 387 swarms of flying locusts.

I think this passed unnoticed because there was a plague which, if the department had not been able to function in terms of this Act, would have threatened the harvests of the Free State, the Transvaal and Natal on a large scale. The fact that this tremendous action took place without enjoying much publicity, is proof of the efficiency of the department in the execution of this important task. I want to thank the officials for the fact that they are quietly getting on with this important job.

I want to thank the hon member for Wellington, who also supports the legislation and who is an expert in this field, most sincerely. He made the very important point that in agriculture there is never really a hard and fast distinction between various actions. Although the Bill has to do with the combating of the importation of pests and plagues, this also goes hand-in-glove with the evaluation of material that is imported. It is important that those activities be viewed together. That is why it is important that in the final analysis we should evaluate these imports, not only with regard to the disease aspect, but also with regard to their quality and to what they will contribute to South African agriculture. In this regard, therefore, it is also important that this material which is disease and virus-free is given to the cultivators so that they may increase it. This must not simply take place on the grounds that it is virus or pest-free, but also on the grounds that it can make a contribution to agricultural production as a whole.

I could mention quite a few aspects in this regard, but I basically want to content myself with what I have said, except to say that the reasons for the importation of these grape cultivars have been investigated and that steps have been taken with a view to improvement.

†I think that the hon member for Bryanston referred to this point to some extent—that we should look at the basic reasons why the importation of such cultivars was taken on by people who were doing it in the wrong way. We have a board which looks at this and I think we have remedied some of the shortcomings by enabling people who want to import better cultivars to do so.

*The hon member for Ladybrand referred to the question of the red-billed quelea and I think he illustrated very effectively that attention will have to be paid to this issue, and that we shall really have to come to grips with it.

†The hon member for Mooi River raised a very interesting point, namely the question of delegating powers to persons or bodies who are not officers of the department. This matter has to be treated with great responsibility. I think that this practice will in future become part of the exercise of controlling problems in various sectors of agriculture, because the situation can very easily arise of departmental officials, for instance the cotton growers’ inspectors, coming to inspect, and then somebody else also coming to inspect, thereby duplicating the process.

I think this is the right way to privatise, that is by still keeping basic control of what is done. By inspection we can ensure that the job is done according to our standards rather than anyone else’s. It is a sensible way of getting the right results in the sector which gains the benefit from and pays for it, without the Public Service having to increase its personnel.

*I thank hon members for their support of this measure.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the SA Veterinary Council, which is an autonomous body, experienced certain problems in the performance of its statutory duties, and that is why a clause had to be introduced to cope with these matters. Provision is now being made, for example, for two para-veterinary professions, those of veterinary nurses and veterinary technicians, to elect their own representatives on the Council. Previously they were co-opted.

I expect that eventually livestock inspectors will also be accommodated, because at present they are providing a very important contributory service regarding immunisation and related services in the livestock industry, as well as performing essential functions from time to time in connection with rabies etc.

There have been cases where students have on their own initiative performed certain acts outside their field of experience, and in such cases the Council has found disciplinary action difficult. Now it is being provided that students undergoing practical training may only perform such acts under the supervision and direction of registered persons.

Furthermore, close corporations which comply with the necessary requirements may now be registered to practice veterinary and para-veterinary professions. We have no fault to find with this. We realise that section 28 of Act 19 of 1982 has become inadequate and also that it did not make provision for the termination of the registration of close corporations. This has now been remedied by clause 9.

A very important and quite drastic change is that the Council is now being authorized to require persons who would otherwise automatically qualify for registration to pass an examination if more than three years have passed since they obtained the prescribed qualifications or if they have not practised their profession for more than three years. This applies to veterinarians who obtained a South African degree at Onderstepoort or Medunsa. It is very interesting to learn that the Council which we are discussing only recognises foreign veterinarians who studied at the College of England or at the Massey University in New Zealand, and that only they are allowed to practise their profession in South Africa. I am not aware of any other places.

The veterinarian plays a very important role in our livestock industry. South African veterinarians are in demand throughout the world and Onderstepoort takes the lead world-wide regarding research and training. This amending Bill brings the veterinary legislation up to date. In particular, I welcome the fact that the provision in terms of which a person is prohibited from registering as a veterinary specialist and a veterinarian at the same time, is being deleted, so that it will be possible to do so from now on. This is a great improvement, because now, instead of discouraging specialisation, we are providing an opportunity for it to develop.

One must take into consideration the fact that as this Council is a quasi-judicial body, it has had to take its own decisions or to engage people to take legal decisions on its behalf; now it is asking for its own juristic personality to supplement its powers. The Bill also provides for a verdict of guilty or not guilty to be published in the Gazette, for example, as in the case of the medical profession. I think this is a good Bill and we gladly support it.

Mr Chairman, I want to react to the speech made by the hon member for Delmas. I want to say that one may largely subscribe to his comments with regard to this Bill.

In the remark made by the hon member for Delmas with regard to the first piece of legislation which we have already dealt with, he made mention of the excellent manner in which the accompanying explanatory memorandum had been compiled by the department. May I just state that my opinion of this legislation is that the way in which the explanatory memorandum has been compiled, has been of great assistance to us. [Interjections.]

The South African Veterinary Council is, of course, an autonomous body, the members of which are elected by persons with veterinary experience and who practise in the veterinary professions. From as early as 1982 this council has, in the course of the exercise of its statutory powers, identified certain problem areas and made certain recommendations. The amending Bill with which we are dealing at present, actually deals fairly comprehensively with the proposals which the South African Veterinary Council has made.

I merely want to refer to clause 2. In terms of clause 2 this Bill provides for the accommodation of a specific proposal made by the S A Veterinary Council with regard to the representation of para-veterinary professional groups; in this instance, specifically the veterinary nurses and technologists. I think it is high time these two professional groups were fully represented on the S A Veterinary Council.

Finally, I want to refer briefly to clause 7. The Bill provides that persons who would otherwise have qualified automatically for registration, will be required to pass an examination if more than three years have elapsed since the time they obtained the prescribed qualifications, or if they have not practised their profession for more than three years. This provision is certainly a necessary one since the competence of a qualified person may become suspect if he has not practised his profession for a long period.

This side of the House is pleased to support this Bill, and we also thank the other parties which I believe will join us in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, like the hon member for Fauresmith I would like to congratulate the department on the excellent memoranda that they produced for the two Bills that we have just had before us. They certainly assist in a deeper understanding of the legislation that comes before us and I found them very helpful indeed.

This Bill contains certain important principles, none of which give us in this party any problems. The first principle has to do with the membership of the South African Veterinary Council which is to be increased to include one elected representative from each of the para-veterinary disciplines. At this stage this means that the veterinary nurses and technologists will each elect one member to the council. Also, such elected members must be people practising the particular para-veterinary profession concerned. This seems eminently fair and reasonable.

The next important provision has to do with the sort of work that registered students may perform. The present wording of the Act allows students to carry out certain tasks normally reserved for the veterinary and para-veterinary professions. There was a loophole here in that the council was unable to take disciplinary action against such students if they performed such tasks outside their experience with disastrous results. In terms of this Bill they will only be able to carry out such tasks under the supervision of a qualified person.

In addition to this, the Bill clarifies the situation of State employees and registered persons acting in a representative capacity, as carrying out their tasks for gain. Thus they definitely fall under the ambit of the provisions of the Act.

The third major provision of the Bill has to do with the registration of close corporations in terms of the Act. The Bill enables them to register under certain special conditions. Firstly, it must be the principal business of the close corporation. Secondly, one of the members of the corporation shall be designated the manager, who himself must be registered in terms of the Act. The Bill also makes provision for individuals who fail to register immediately after they qualify. When this happens, the council feels that their proficiency might become suspect and that they should be registered only after having passed an examination determined by the council. We would agree with this and have no quarrel with it.

Various clauses in the Bill deal with technical alterations following on these main principle clauses of the Act. There is one further major provision of the Bill which has to do with council enquiries into the alleged misconduct of registered persons. Provision is made for the keeping of proper records with evidence in such enquiries and also pinpoints accountability so that registered persons may not claim that they acted on behalf of their employees when taking certain action. In future this shall not be considered to be a valid defence.

The Bill has been submitted for comment to all interested parties and the provisions have apparently been generally accepted, so we will support this Bill through all stages.

Mr Chairman, after what the previous speakers said, not much remains for me to say about the Bill, except to also thank the officials for their nicely prepared memoranda. For those of us in the joint committee, it was a pleasant and easy task to consider this proposed amending Bill.

Nevertheless, I must say that the veterinary profession in South Africa is not only of the greatest importance to us, but also of the greatest importance to the whole of Southern African. Its achievements are known world-wide, and as a result South Africa enjoys world-wide recognition on this level. It is a highly professional vocation and for that reason it is also of the utmost importance that its activities be properly controlled and disciplined.

The amending Bill before us entails the further regulation of precisely such legislation which, as has already been said, was placed on the Statute Books in 1982. Basically, what is at issue is the professional conduct of the people in this profession. Until 1982, the control over these people was vested in the Veterinary Board, which was actually only an extension of the State. At the request of the profession in question, this board was replaced in 1982 by the South African Veterinary Council, an autonomous body, the majority of the members of which are elected by people in that profession.

This amending Bill seeks to enable this council to exercise its statutory functions in a better and more efficient manner, and to address certain shortcomings which still exist in the Act. It is also important to note that the council specifically asked for these amendments. Since previous hon members have already gone into the details of the Bill, I shall not do so again, and I should like to support the amending Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I would also like to refer to the excellent manner in which the documentation was submitted to the joint committee. It was an absolute treat to have such an efficient presentation. As a member of that committee I would just like to associate myself with the praise which has been levelled at the officials.

I would briefly like to comment on several aspects. The provision whereby persons practising para-veterinary professions are to be represented on the veterinary councils is a forward step. This is an important feature of the legislation, which in conjunction with clause 6, entrenches the authority of the veterinary profession. [Interjections.] This makes it possible for students undergoing training to be allowed to perform certain veterinary functions, resulting in what I consider to be a far more sensible approach to practical aspects of training.

The recognition of a close corporation in a veterinary profession practice will take care of the problems which can be experienced when the estate of a partner of a practice is wound up or when he retires. At the same time it caters for a more flexible approach between those involved in a practice.

I would also like to comment on the measures contained in the Bill to recognise veterinary specialists. This is in conformity with the modem trend, whereby greater emphasis is being placed on professional specialisation.

Finally, the examination requirement contained in clause 7 (b) appears to be reasonable, particularly bearing two factors in mind. The first relates to the need to ensure that advances in the profession are observed and applied and the second to the fact that the South African taxpayer is entitled to some form of recourse to ensure that the cost of training which he has to bear has not merely gone to waste.

I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful that hon members are supporting this Bill. Because the documentation is so good, one could see that hon members knew what they were talking about and that they addressed all the problems contained in the legislation. I am therefore not going to repeat what has been said and I am grateful to hon members in this regard.

A few aspects which, in my opinion, require emphasis, include the fact that discipline amongst veterinary students was necessary and was correctly addressed. The amendments in this regard are good. The accommodation of para-veterinary professions—this is a question that the hon member for Fauresmith touched on—is also necessary.

I want to tell the hon member for Bryanston that there is an important point concerning control measures which requires further emphasis. In the past, when these veterinarians entered their profession, many of them carried out certain tasks in accordance with what their employers told them, and then failed to take responsibility for their actions. The legislation addresses this point very clearly so that a person, although he may be in the service of someone else, cannot escape the responsibility of his profession. I think that this is a very, very important aspect with far-reaching consequences.

I want to thank the hon member for Humansdorp for his words on the veterinary professions in South African and for sketching the history in this regard. I do not think there is a country in the world which has the same quality of veterinary science officials as we have. South Africa’s fame in this regard extends far beyond our borders.

This legislation has contributed to that, and the vacuums which emerged were filled in co-operation with all parties. In my opinion, the changes to this legislation will contribute towards helping this profession still further so that we will be able to reach even greater heights.

I want to thank the hon member for Mooi River for his support and for the compliments regarding the memorandum. With the changes to this legislation, this wonderful profession, which plays such a tremendously important role in agriculture in South Africa, will only be able to reach greater heights.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! My attention has been drawn to words expressed by the hon member for Esselen Park yesterday which amount to his having implied that the hon member for Haarlem was stupid. I ask him to withdraw what he said.

I withdraw it with pleasure, Sir.

Order! I want to address a further request to hon members, viz to make sure when we are debating own affairs and when we are debating general affairs. We have to distinguish for the sake of clarity.

Mr Chairman, legislation passed by the Parliament of the Cape Colony towards the end of the last century to control the importation of plants and plant material, was made applicable to the entire country after Union. This legislation was the precursor to the Agricultural Pests Act of 1973, which made a major contribution toward keeping many of the world’s most feared insects and diseases out of the country, for example destructive pests like the potato, tortoise and cotton beetle, etc.

The Agricultural Pests Amendment Bill also provides that the combating of red-billed quelea will be phased out by the authorities. This has resulted from the Government’s privatisation policy.

The increased penalties envisaged for the illegal importation of propagating material follow on the findings of the Klopper Commission. This commission was appointed after Chardonnay vine-cuttings had been brought into the country illegally a few years ago by some well-known wine farmers. In its report the Commission of Inquiry into the Cultivar Purity and Illegal Importation of Certain Vine Propagating Material made certain recommendations with a view to intensifying the control over the importation of propagating material, thereby reducing the risk of the introduction of foreign agricultural pests.

The purpose of the legislation is to implement the recommendations of the Klopper Commission. The Klopper Commission also found that the present maximum penalties are insufficient to serve as an effective deterrent. In terms of the commission’s recommendations the legislation has considerably increased the maximum fines and the term of imprisonment for these offences. We support this legislation, but I again want to appeal to the Government to abolish the permit system, in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Yesterday in Oudtshoorn the hon the Deputy Minister announced that a water scheme was going to be built. I should like to know whether the inhabitants of Dysselsdorp are also going to benefit from this.

Mr Chairman, in consequence of the debacle in 1984-85 after a report in Die Kalender, a supplement of Beeld of 30 May 1985, and accusations against the Government, as reported in Die Burger of 1 May 1985, the hair-splitting and the bandying about of reproaches regarding the illegal importation of certain vine propagating material, on 7 November 1985 the hon the State President appointed Mr C F Klopper as the only member and chairman of a commission to investigate and report on the cultivar purity and illegal importation of certain vine propagating material. The commission published its findings and recommendations in September 1986. This Bill therefore gives effect to certain of the recommendations of the Klopper Commission.

The Bill is aimed at defining or further defining certain expressions, as well as delegating powers and assigning duties to a person who is not an officer. However, I want to point out that as regards the delegation of powers and the assignment of duties to a person who is not an officer, the commission expressly warned against the appointment of persons who do not have the necessary expertise.

It is, however, essential for there to be stricter control over the importation of propagating material in order to control the introduction of harmful and foreign agricultural pests which can do great damage to our own industry. For that reason I want to appeal to the hon the Minister, as regards this clause, to heed the recommendation of the commission. Clause 4 also authorises the executive officer not only to take steps against persons who bring goods into the country illegally, but also against persons in possession or in charge of such illegal goods.

The commission recommended that anyone involved in viticulture and the wine industry may apply for a permit to import propagating material. However, that person must also meet all the requirements of the Vine Improvement Board, and must also bear all the costs involved in quarantine, tests and investigations. I hope that in the light of the fact that this recommendation has been made so expressly, the department will not place unnecessary obstacles in the way of such persons.

Clause 10 provides that any person guilty of the illegal importation of plant material may be heavily penalised. This is to be welcomed.

The report recommends that persons, farms and organisations responsible for such illegal importation should be placed under quarantine and none of their products sold for a period of two years.

There is something which is not quite clear to me here. It is stated that persons attached to state or semi-state organisations should be dismissed from their posts. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to react to a few of the aspects mentioned. This legislation is before us in consequence of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry investigating irregularities with regard to the importation of vine material. Many shortcomings were pointed out and recommendations were made. When one looks at that commission’s findings, we can consider ourselves lucky that we did not let ourselves in for big problems. We escaped the importation of diseases from abroad which could have had an extremely adverse effect on our vine industry. Because of this we made certain recommendations embodied in this legislation and hon members clearly referred to this.

The most important characteristic of this legislation is the heavier penalties, as well as the fact that deficiencies have been remedied and at the same time attention has been given to other aspects, for example red-billed quelea, which to an increasing extent are becoming a pest. In addition the principal Act as a whole has been tightened up.

The hon member for Dysselsdorp referred to some of the problems and I thank him for that, as well as for his support for this Bill. I do want to point out to him that the announcement about the water was not made by me but by the hon the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs. Allow me to point out that this announcement resulted from the fact that when a rural community’s survival is threatened as a result of water, the State cannot be so indifferent as not to supply water there. When it introduces such a scheme, it does so for the sake of the community. [Interjections.] It is therefore for the sake of everyone; it is a scheme aimed at the community and at the rural areas.

The hon member for Hantam quoted the same findings of the Klopper Commission. I agree with him that it is an improvement. He mentioned the aspect of the obstacles placed in the way of certain development. I think the legislation actually facilitates procedures and will in the long run eliminate problems because there is more certainty on what happens, and the uncertainties which existed in the past are now being eliminated.

The question of the quarantine period of two years is important because the big problem is the importation of viruses. It very often takes approximately two years to ascertain to what extent that virus in a plant is or is not prejudicial. We must therefore have a quarantine period.

The hon member for Dysselsdorp mentioned the aspect of the abolition of permits. We shall review this again later. I think we are making progress in this connection.

I want to mention a final point which may be of interest to the House seeing that this legislation is on the Order Paper. In the period between September 1988 and 24 February 1989 the locust combating campaign functioned under the provisions of the principal Act. We have now killed a total of 30 148 voetganger swarms and 1 387 flying swarms. This was an achievement which was made possible by this Act and which consequently protected farmers in other areas against a tremendous problem. I thank hon members for their support for this Bill.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, between 1933 and 1982 control over the professional conduct of persons practising veterinary and para-veterinary professions was vested in the Veterinary Board. In 1982 this Board was replaced by the South African Veterinary Council, which is an autonomous body the majority of the members of which … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member a chance. He does not talk when other hon members are making a speech.

The South African Veterinary Council is an autonomous body, of which the majority of the members are elected by persons practising those professions. In the course of the exercise of its statutory powers, this Council identified certain problem areas in the Act and that is why certain proposals for the amendment of the Act were submitted.

Firstly, the membership of the Council should be increased so that persons practising the various para-veterinary professions will be afforded the opportunity to elect their own representatives on the South African Veterinary Council. At present representatives of those professions are only co-opted when matters affecting the professions concerned are dealt with. It is also provided … [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Border say that the hon member for Dysselsdorp was an ostrich?

No, Sir. I said he was an ostrich doctor.

Order! What was the hon member implying?

The hon member was talking about veterinarians and so on. I therefore said this referred to an ostrich doctor. I did not refer to the hon member as such. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must speak into the microphone. The hon member for Dysselsdorp may proceed.

It is furthermore provided that these elected representatives shall be registered in terms of the Act to practise the para-veterinary profession concerned, and shall be subject to the same qualifications on election and requirements at vacation of office, as the representatives of veterinarians.

Secondly, students undergoing practical training should be allowed to perform acts normally pertaining to veterinary or para-veterinary professions only if they are performed under the supervision and by direction of registered persons. In the past the Council found disciplinary action very difficult when students, on their own initiative, performed acts outside their field of experience with disastrous results.

Thirdly, the concept “for gain, directly or indirectly” should be extended so as to place it beyond doubt that persons practising veterinary and para-veterinary professions, in the course of their employment by an employer, with inclusion of the State, do so “for gain”. This has become absolutely essential as a result of uncertainty as to whether such persons are answerable to the Council.

The Council is also being authorised to require that persons who would otherwise automatically qualify for registration, pass an examination if more than three years have elapsed since they obtained the prescribed qualifications, or if they have not practised their profession for more than three years. This provision is necessary as the proficiency of a qualified person can become suspect if he has not practised his profession for an extended period of time.

The existing provision in terms of which a person may not be registered to practise as a veterinarian and a veterinary specialist simultaneously is being deleted, because this prohibition tends to discourage specialisation and is consequently not deemed to be in the interests of veterinary professions in the Republic of South Africa.

The provision relating to the termination of registration is being supplemented so as to regulate the circumstances under which the registration of a close corporation may be terminated. In this amending Bill a provision is being proposed in terms of which a member’s interest in a close corporation can be held for a certain period by a person or an estate when the registration of a member is terminated, withdrawn or suspended or a member dies, without the registration of the corporation being terminated thereby. For that reason it is of cardinal importance for us to support this amending Bill in order to ensure the orderly transfer of such member’s interest.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful for the support pledged to this amending Bill.

This is an amending Bill which is remedying deficiencies in the existing Act and facilitating certain actions. The hon member for Dysselsdorp referred briefly to the question of the defining of “work for gain” and the responsibility in this regard. In the past, for example, a veterinarian working for an employer did not perform his veterinary responsibilities, shirked them and did everything his employer told him to. If steps were taken against that person, he said that he was not responsible and that he was actually acting on the orders of his employer. In terms of the amending Bill the responsibility now vests in the person and he cannot hide behind such deficiencies.

There are a number of aspects embodied in the amending Bill but because hon members agree with them, I do not want to reply any further.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the Council for Mineral Technology was formed in terms of the Mineral Technology Act of 1981, but Mintek’s history goes as far back as 1934 when the Mineral Research Laboratory was established. The current Act sets out the objective of the Council as follows: “To provide for the promotion of mineral technology, including research into the properties, recovery, extraction, processing and utilization of minerals and mineral products (other than fuel of an organic chemical nature) produced or utilized in the Republic or any place outside the Republic determined by the Minister or potentially capable of being so produced or utilized.”

The Minister of National Education has requested that uniformity be obtained in legislation regulating the establishment, functioning and activities of the various scientific councils. It is also Government policy to grant greater autonomy to such councils in connection with the management of their financial affairs. Further it is the Government’s intention that these councils must obtain a larger portion of their income from furnishing services on a commercial basis.

(For these reasons the Scientific Research Council Act was passed in 1988 and the Mineral Technology Bill of 1989 is based on the CSIR Act.

The CSIR Act makes specific provision for that body to be known as the CSIR, and clause 2 of this Bill introduces for the first time the name “Mintek” into legislation. From its inception in 1981 the Council for Mineral Technology has been known as Mintek, and this name is now well established in mining, metallurgical and scientific circles throughout the world.

The more practical and business-oriented approach of research councils is reflected in the addition to the objects of Mintek of the words “and to foster the establishment and expansion of industries in the field of minerals and products derived therefrom.”

*In accordance with the objective mentioned above, the functions and powers of Mintek are extended by the provision in clause 4(3) (b (iii) of the Bill which authorises Mintek to establish any company for the purpose of developing or exploiting any invention or technological expertise. Further, Mintek may also acquire an interest in or control over any company or statutory body to achieve its objectives.

In addition, in terms of clause 4(3)(d) Mintek acquires the right to manufacture and sell instruments, equipment and similar items as well as to produce, process and sell minerals, metals, chemicals and related products. These powers will enable Mintek to promote and carry out the Government’s policy of greater local processing of RSA minerals. In practice this will mean that, if Mintek should see an opportunity to process ore and export semi-finished products which cannot be utilized by the industry, it will be able to enter the field itself and, as soon as the viability of such an undertaking is proved, it will be placed at the disposal of the industry or Mintek may, in association with a producer, form a company for the purpose. Mintek does not envisage entering into competition with the mineral processing industry.

Clause 6 of the Bill makes provision for the appointment of a chairman of the Mintek Board and the president as Chief Executive Officer. The current Act provides that the president is also the chairman of the Board, just as in the case of the CSIR. This position was changed as regards the CSIR by the passing during 1988 of the Scientific Research Council Act, Act 46 of 1988. The Bill under discussion enables the Minister to follow the same policy in accordance with the object of greater uniformity in the legislation of the various scientific councils.

†Section 13 of the present Act deals with the finances of Mintek, and with the requirements for the auditing of the financial affairs of Mintek. These matters are now dealt with in the two separate clauses, being clauses 12 and 13, of the Bill. The audit requirements have been expanded and brought up to date in accordance with modern accounting practice, viz the annual report must now include an audited statement of the source and application of funds.

*It may be said in summary that the first object of the Bill is to attain uniformity with laws regulating other scientific councils and, secondly, to enable Mintek to fulfil its essential role more effectively, that is, to promote and expand the development of the RSA mineral industry by pointing out and emphasizing the value of opportunities it identifies for further processing and benefication of our mineral resources.

Mr Chairman, I support the Mineral Technology Bill which was amended by the joint committee. It is not a contentious Bill.

The Bill under discussion provides for the management of the Council for Mineral Technology which will concentrate specifically on the research and promotion of mineral areas. It must be borne in mind that the establishment and expansion of industries in these areas must be encouraged. This council will be known as Mintek. Mintek must therefore by means of proper research attain its objectives by better utilisation of the mineral resources of the Republic. The South African mining industry is moving more and more rapidly in the direction of the use of modern technological apparatus, something which may be ascribed to its unique character.

This council can also improve technical processes and methods in mineral production in South Africa. In terms of clause 7 the Board of Mintek may nominate a committee which shall, subject to the instructions of the Board, perform those functions of the Board that the Board may determine.

Previous pieces of legislation, like the Scientific Research Council Act, Act 46 of 1988, are practically the same.

Mr Chairman, I will never refuse to speak about gold because I live in Johannesburg where there is gold.

Until the end of the 19th century South Africa’s economy was based almost entirely on agriculture. The country concentrated on subsistence agriculture and stock-raising. No wonder the stocks used to wander around in other people’s territories, thus causing those terrible tribal wars. However, I am not going to talk about those wars.

In 1867 diamonds were discovered on the Vaal River and in 1886 gold deposits were found at the Witwatersrand. Having invested in heavy machinery to exploit the gold deposits, South Africa’s industrial revolution began.

In the first five decades of the twentieth century South Africa produced more that half of the world’s gold. Today South Africa is a leading industrial country in Africa and the world and it has to maintain that lead by means of research, development and technology to foster the establishment and expansion of industries in the field of mineral products despite venomous boycotts, disinvestment and the campaigns which might stop it.

This Bill is to provide for continued existence of the Council for Mineral Technology and for the management of such a council by a board which will now continue to exist as a juristic person known as Mintek. It is also important to note that the Mineral Technology Bill of 1989 has been the result of a request by the Minister of National Education who insisted that uniformity should be achieved in the Act governing the establishment operation and functions of the various scientific councils. Therefore this present Act has been redrafted to be brought into line with the Scientific Research Council Act, No 46 of 1988.

We are aware that Mintek will be able to help with bursaries where it can. It will also be able to help with research at schools, universities and technikons. However, above all, we would like to appeal to the hon the Minister that if such an establishment is erected anywhere in South Africa, it should not necessarily be in a White area such as Brakpan or Boksburg. I would prefer that it should be nearer to where the people are. I would suggest that Nancefield and Delville are suitable places for such an institution.

I support this Bill. As far as we are concerned this is real progress in our country.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank hon members for Rust Ter Vaal and Eldorado Park for supporting this Bill.

The hon member for Eldorado Park referred to the establishment of new research centres. I wish to point out to him that I do not think it is the intention of Mintek to establish another research centre. We have one on the outskirts of Johannesburg and I do not think we could afford to establish another one. However I have taken note of what he has said and I thank him for supporting the Bill.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! Subsequent to the suspension of the honourable member for Arena Park and his exclusion from the precincts of Parliament by a resolution of the House of Delegates adopted on Thursday, 23 February, I have received a number of enquiries concerning the implications of that resolution.

For the benefit of members I should therefore like to give the following ruling:

Rules 81 to 85 of the Standing Rules of Parliament relate to the suspension and other forms of discipline of a member for the particular contraventions specified in Rule 81, namely a deliberate contravention of the Rules, contempt of or disregarding the authority of the Chair or grossly disorderly conduct. Only the Speaker can suspend a member under those Rules (Rule 82), and it is in respect of such a suspension that a fixed period is prescribed by Rule 84.

The honourable member for Arena Park was suspended from the service of the House of Delegates and excluded from the precincts of Parliament by a resolution of the House of Delegates on 23 February 1989 for the reasons stated in the resolution. Those reasons cannot be brought under Rule 81; therefore a suspension under the Rules by Mr Speaker would not have been possible. The suspension and exclusion were effected by the House of Delegates under a general power to discipline its members which it possesses in common with the other Houses of the South African Parliament and houses of other parliaments.

The honourable member for Arena Park is a member of Parliament only because he is a member of the House of Delegates; no member has a membership of Parliament that is severable or distinguishable from his membership of his House. The honourable member therefore has no duties or other functions as a member of Parliament that are not in fact and in law duties and functions in his capacity as a member of the House of Delegates. The suspension from the service of the House precludes the performance of any such duty or function, and the exclusion from the precincts of Parliament precludes Mr Rajbansi’s presence in any office or other premises within those precincts for any purpose. The provisions of subsection (3)(c), read with subsections (1)(a) and (2), of section 10 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, No 91 of 1963, are available for the purpose of enforcing the resolution.

The payment of salaries and allowances to members of Parliament is regulated by the Payment of Members of Parliament Act, No 40 of 1974, which defines “members of Parliament” as members of the Houses of Parliament, excluding Ministers and Deputy Ministers. A member’s rights to a salary and allowances under that Act are not suspended by or as a result of this suspension from the service of the House. Suspension from the service of a House is, however, not one of the exempting causes of absence specified in subsection (3)(a) of section 2 of that Act, with the result that the amounts prescribed by subsection (1) of that section have to be deducted in respect of any absence not falling under the provisions of subsection (3)(b) or (c), even if the suspension is the cause of such absence.

I hope that this ruling of mine will bring more clarity to this matter.

Mr Speaker, I have already had the opportunity of introducing this measure in the House of Representatives, and so if hon members will forgive me I am not going to make the same remarks that I made there. However, in order to refresh the memories of hon members with regard to this particular piece of legislation there are certain issues that I would like to raise right at the outset.

I am in particular aware of the fact that hon members who serve on the joint committee have studied this legislation very carefully. It is therefore not necessary to explain the provisions in full detail, but hon members who have questions should of course feel free to put those questions to me. By way of introduction, I think hon members will also appreciate the fact that one should consider certain issues that form the back-drop to this legislation.

The first important point is that we have the largest motor vehicle population in Africa—an amount of 5,5 million. Our road network is generally accepted to be the best on the continent. Despite economic difficulties inflicted upon us we have an inherent power to grow. The informal sector in South Africa has unlimited scope in this regard but in the past the transport industry was largely looked upon as a “closed shop”. It was effectively regulated.

The regulation of public transport by means of permits gave rise to a lot of discontent which was followed by accusations of unfair protection of vested interests. We also know that the regulation of transport by means of permits amounted to unnecessary expense to many parties. This overhead-related situation caused overloading to take place in some cases. We have also had “pirate operators” coming onto the market. The legitimate operators were continuously scrutinised and sometimes their permits were queried.

The whole objective is to reform all this. As a result of an unsatisfactory situation the National Transport Policy Study was appointed to investigate the whole transport industry in South Africa.

Hon members are well-versed in the White Paper on this issue. They know that this White Paper envisages a free market transport industry. The individual decides what mode of transport he prefers, who does it for him and how much he pays. A regulated road transport industry could not be replaced by a free-for-all industry where no strict control is envisaged over vehicle fitness, driver fitness and the efficiency of the operator/ owner.

This is the whole purpose of this Bill. The driver must not by his indifference or inefficiency endanger lives and property. He must be a professional driver, trained and properly licensed. In my opinion the driver is the most important factor in the whole Road Transport Quality System. He will have to be severely tested in theory and in practice. These tests will be uniformly applied countrywide. Secondly, the professional driver must be clearly identifiable and will be restricted to certain regulations governing driving hours. His driving permit must be carried when driving a Road Transport Quality System vehicle.

In the past vehicles have always been required to be roadworthy. The position as far as this Bill is concerned is unaltered. However, roadworthy tests in turn will be uniformly applied countrywide. Roadworthy certificates are issued on an annual basis. It is also admitted that more vehicles will come onto the market as a result of deregulation and also as a result of privatisation. When these vehicles come onto the market, more of them will have to be tested annually. This will mean a bigger workload and can be overcome by phasing in testing over a two year period and by privatising testing stations.

We have given legal recognition to the concept of an operator. The operator will probably be the owner or somebody designated by the owner. These individuals will then be jointly responsible with the driver. The owner will have an important responsibility also to ensure that vehicles are roadworthy and that drivers are licensed as professional drivers. It therefore means that we are holding more than one person responsible for a vehicle.

Lastly, effective law enforcement to ensure safety on our roads will only be implemented if we have a foolproof computerised information system to keep records of drivers or operators of vehicles and of traffic violations. These records can be consulted at all times. I think it is going to be very, very important indeed if we want to apply the Road Transport Quality System in South Africa.

These are the main features of this piece of legislation. I am certain that hon members will support me in this Bill. I would also like to conclude by saying that the motives of the Government as far as this piece of legislation is concerned, are clear. We say yes to more transport entrepreneurs. We say yes to greater competition and a freer market. However, to greater risks and less safety on our road, we give an unequivocal no.

Mr Chairman, this is the first time that I am sitting on this side of the House in a debate which concerns the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. It is also the very first time in my last four years in this House that I am sitting on this side of the House, unlike some other hon members who have come over to this side, moved to the other side and moved back again. There was a to-and-fro movement going on …

That is the Transport Services!

… during the time of Mr Rajbansi and his party. I am, however, …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to refer to another hon member by his name rather than by his constituency?

Order! The hon member for Havenside must refer to hon members of whatever constituency. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am quite used to being on the other side of the House in my debates with the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. I used to enjoy debating on these matters. I shall also experience the same joy debating face to face with him. Today I am sitting side by side with him, but this must in no way indicate that all the Bills which are brought into this House will have a very easy passage.

The Road Traffic Bill emanates from the White Paper which was presented to Parhament by the National Transport Policy Committee. The Bill provides among other things for the consolidation of the existing road traffic ordinances of the four provinces into one national Act. This move is in the right direction and it will bring about a unified system of road traffic ordinances throughout the country.

The Bill also provides a new dimension in the interest of public safety which is a very important element and factor in relation to road transport and this is the road traffic quality control system. We are getting mixed reactions from certain transport operators and also from certain sectors of our community but I think that we have to look at this Bill very objectively.

I say so for several reasons. One is of course the ever-increasing road accidents and the fatal deaths on our roads which is becoming a very alarming issue all over South Africa.

There is also the negligence on the part of certain heavy transport operators in maintaining their vehicles to the standards and the levels which are expected of them for safety purposes. Coupled with the negligence on the part of certain drivers it has had a tremendous effect on motorists in general and is resulting in insurance companies inflating their premiums and imposing rigid basic conditions on vehicle policies. It has also had a tremendous impact on all motor vehicle owners.

I want to say to this House that the basic facts about this Bill are that it provides for the quality of the vehicles in the road transport industry in the interest of public safety, and for the driver quality system which is also a very, very important element in road safety generally.

Drivers are blamed for accidents when in fact it is often the operators that are grossly negligent. I say so because there has been no provision in the past in regard to the long hours which these drivers are exposed to, thus resulting in road accidents.

I have before me a report—which I am not going to read—on the problems which exist in the USA where drivers are made to drive their vehicles over long hours, resulting in fatigue. This has to be controlled if we are to look at road safety in general. Unscrupulous operators are making very good use of drivers. At present there are hundreds of drivers who are unemployed. They are quite prepared to take on any other driving job just to make a living. These people are being exploited. They drive long, long hours and fatigue becomes the order of the day. This results in fatal accidents.

I think that this Bill constitutes a wonderful new dimension for road traffic control and as soon as it is implemented it will usher in a new era in road safety.

At the same time, however, there are certain clauses in the Bill that give rise to concern on my part and on the part of other hon members of Parliament. I refer to clauses 132 and 133. In this regard I should like to make a very special request to the hon the Minister to examine these two clauses, whereby the local authority has the right to make by-laws in regard to the small operator—about whom I am particularly concerned—to ensure that the various small operators are also able to operate their business so that their livelihood is not disturbed in any way through the implementation of the new Bill. I also make the appeal that he, in conjunction or in consultation with the province, make provision for the small operator to be housed in suitable premises to enable them also to be able to conduct their businesses as they have been doing over the years. I am certain that this is the only way we shall be able to bring about that considerable measure of relief for the very small business operators.

Mr Chairman, confusion still reigns in this House, because some hon members are interested in positions. After achieving this, they forget the role that they have to play in this House.

The latest issue of Financial Mail states that there is no party in the House of Delegates; just movements. I wish to remind hon members who are involved in moving that they are interfering with the functions of the SATS who are the only ones who take care of moving of movables. The hon members must stop making moves. They should return to the party that helped them to be elected or that nominated them.

This Road Traffic Bill stems from the White Paper on the National Transport Policy which was tabled in Parliament on 30 January 1987. The Bill forms part of a package of Bills that is the most important element in the implementation of the new road transport policy.

The Bill includes a road transport quality system which is aimed at creating an environment of safety and quality which will allow the road transport sector to be deregulated. For the transport quality system to function effectively, a comprehensive information system is required. Enabling provisions in this regard in the Road Traffic Bill are clauses 134, 135 and 136.

The information system will contain not only the existing provincial registers of vehicles and the central register of drivers, but also registers of operators of vehicles, professional drivers, roadworthy certificates, traffic offences, the testing facilities and the personnel. The system is designed to be on line, with direct access to the registers for the registering and enforcement authorities.

Initially approximately 170 registering authorities will be linked to the system. This will, however, be expanded in time to include all authorities. The system will be able to process the information contained on the registers in order to correlate traffic offences with both professional drivers and vehicle operators. This correlation will form a traffic record of drivers and operators which will be used to investigate and possibly take administrative action against offenders in terms of clauses 46 and 79 of the Road Traffic Bill.

The system will also be able to monitor testing done by examiners for drivers’ licences, examiners of vehicles, driver testing centres and vehicle testing stations.

Where it is found that unsafe drivers are being licensed or unroadworthy vehicles are being given roadworthy certificates, both the facility and the examiners concerned can be investigated. The system will provide improved access to the registers of all licensing enforcement offices. It will be possible to check the validity of driver’s licences, professional driving permits, etc, on these registers more easily than at present. That will contribute significantly to the prevention of fraud and falsification of these documents. Enforcement officers will also be able to obtain the previous traffic offence record of a driver or operator prior to issuing a warning or traffic offence tickets.

One of the important matters in this Bill is primarily to consolidate the existing four provincial road traffic ordinances into one national Act. This will lead to uniformity. After all, our hon State President did say that South Africa is one country and one nation—why then should we have different ordinances in the different provinces?

While the establishment of the new information system is expensive, the new equipment required to operate it is in effect largely a replacement of existing provincial vehicle register systems which are not uniform and are inflexible. The establishment of a new system of this nature is a major task and is at present the controlling factor in starting the implementation of the road transport quality system. The development of the system is already under way and the National Transport Commission has already provided funds to start its practical establishment.

We have to tighten up on road traffic legislation, particularly concerning careless and reckless drivers. There are many unlicensed drivers on the roads. They have licensed themselves to kill on the roads. This is most unsatisfactory and must be dealt with with extreme urgency. Besides loss of innocent lives, hon members can imagine what it is costing our country in the way of hospitalisation and medication. The figure must be astronomical and we can least afford it at the moment. Then we have not yet taken the repair costs of vehicles and properties into account.

The Central Statistical Service released some shocking figures of accidents and I quote from a newspaper report:

That was in 1988—

How many were yours?

None. I am not in the transport business. I am only a spokesman on transport. The hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs is sitting across the floor.

The report states further:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to comment on the statement made by the hon member for Umzinto—the Deputy Minister-designate of his party, but unfortunately not successful. [Interjections.]

I want to remind the hon member that Solidarity is the majority party under the leadership of the hon member for Glenview, Dr J N Reddy, who is a very great leader insofar as the Indian community is concerned. He is going to give some stability and credibility insofar as this House is concerned. I want to remind the hon member of that. [Interjections.]

During the chairmanship of the hon member for Umzinto on the Joint Committee on Transport it was said that the House of Delegates was better than the SATS because it carried more passengers than the SATS. [Interjections.] Now Solidarity will say that the SATS is better than the House of Delegates.

I want to make certain comments in respect of this Bill. I want to say that the reading of the Bill in this House is not important. The implementation of this Bill is more important. This Bill consolidates a great number of ordinances of the four provinces. Each of the provinces had ordinances in their own fashion and style. In order to bring uniformity in respect of all these ordinances they were consolidated in this one omnibus Bill. I think it is the duty of the Department of Transport Affairs itself to coordinate its services through informing the various municipalities and other authorities of the various provisions that are made in this Bill.

This Bill confers a wide range of powers upon the Administrator of Natal and he in turn delegates these powers to the various municipalities. One of the difficulties that the department will have to deal with is the question of the testing of vehicles. As the hon the Minister said, there are 5,5 million vehicles and of these more than 2,5 million are heavy-duty transport vehicles. These vehicles have to be tested for road-worthiness at certain points. Unfortunately there is no system for road-worthiness testing in South Africa.

I would like to quote from an article in the latest edition of the publication The SA Transporter. I am quoting as follows:

This is in respect of the testing of vehicles. The other important aspect is that we have the SATS itself with its many thousands of vehicles. We have huge bus companies with their own vehicles. If they are going to privatise the testing of vehicles one can understand that corruption will set in immediately. This matter was raised in the joint committee but I do not think a suitable answer could be found.

The fact is that the entire Bill with all its provisions is now uniform. The department has to implement these measures and has to get the municipalities to look into the matter of testing of vehicles. In Natal the Natal Provincial Administration, which handles the testing of vehicles, has a long list of appointments dating back two months. They are unable to cope with the testing of vehicles. Not only do they test the vehicles, they also have to issue certificates for learner drivers and test drivers. These various aspects all fall under the umbrella of one testing unit of the Natal Provincial Administration.

Similarly all municipalities throughout South Africa have these various departments, culminating in one unit. Therefore, the Department of Transport has to find ways and means, through a co-ordinated body which has to be established under the Department of Transport with an executive officer, to reach the municipalities. The municipalities will then be educated on this Bill. Various provinces are employing the old methods of testing or examining vehicles, therefore this is very important.

The other important issue is the camera system which various municipalities employed as a means of prosecuting people for speeding offences. This is one of the matters that has been deferred until such time as a committee has been employed to investigate it and to bring out a report. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I trust the administrators of the Transvaal, the Cape and the Free State are not overlooked. They do not appear to be, in terms of the Bill. Occasionally from the Ministers on the Government side, we get something that is worthwhile which we can support with alacrity. This Bill—it is quite clear— is really a compendium which brings together the various ordinances and improves the situation. One thing that I am pleased about is the professionalisation of the drivers of heavy-duty public service vehicles. That is a good thing and it seems to be a prelude to the deregulation of the Road Transportation Act because we know that in the past the Road Transportation Act in fact has stifled economic growth in this country. To the extent that the deregulation that will be facilitated by the operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act will be welcomed.

We know that in South Korea anyone who complies with the minimum requirements of law can operate a bus or taxi service. As a result of deregulation we have Sabta as one of the biggest private entrepreneurial systems in the transportation field in Africa. As a result of the rise of Sabta, the State has been saving tens of millions of rand a year which used to go by way of subsidies to the Carleo brothers and Putco and various other transport operators who took public money and put it in their back pockets. That now can be saved for the State. That too, is a development which we welcome.

We also welcome the provision for spot checks of vehicles. The provisions in the Road Traffic Ordinances of the various provinces were there, but they did not have enough teeth. This Bill will give the traffic officers the required teeth. In the United Kingdom and Germany the police have the authority, if they see a “gunda-ganda”—a vehicle which does not seem to be in a roadworthy condition—to stop that vehicle and to do a spot check and if their suspicions are confirmed, to take that vehicle off the road. In South Africa there are far too many of these “gunda-gandas” which pose a great danger because a defective vehicle can nevertheless be pressed down hard and reach a speed of 100km or 120km an hour.

If the brake system is faulty, that vehicle becomes a lethal weapon. I am not only talking about motor cars, but about heavy-duty vehicles as well. Scores of innocent lives have been taken as a result of this and we welcome the police and traffic officers being given the authority which is necessary for the protection of the public at large. They also need to check motor vehicles and take off the street those vehicles, whether they are buses, trucks or private cars, which pollute the atmosphere with unduly filthy exhaust emission. I think all of us have had experience of exhausts blowing into our faces when our motor car windows are down or when we are walking on the street. This causes extreme distress. Just imagine all those horrible fumes going into our lungs and being deposited there, causing great problems in later years.

Clause 137 provides for regulations and certain exemptions with regard to parking. I wish to say that it is a great pity that members of Parliament are not being given similar exemption from parking regulations. However, I have some reservations about the by-laws which the local authorities are entitled to make, because most of the local authorities which have the power to enact by-laws are unrepresentative and undemocratic, in that they represent only the White voters. I have some reservations about that, but I will allow it to pass because there are so many other nicer aspects of the Bill.

I now come to the toll-road disgrace. I use the expression “toll-road disgrace” because the public is being ripped off. I would like the hon the Minister to give urgent attention to curtailing the activities of these companies which immediately, when they see an opportunity, try to squeeze members of the public. In Mooi River in Natal it was only vigorous public protest which caused a reduction in the fees.

I would like to recommend to the hon the Minister that he makes representations to his colleagues in the independent states—former South African territories—to try and persuade them to enact similar legislation in those states, because many vehicles, whether they are from Bophuthatswana or the Transkei, criss-cross into our territory and that is also something which has to be regulated.

Mr Chairman, it was interesting to note the comments of the hon member for Umzinto on transport movements. I have heard a whisper that his ex-leader was studying the transport business in order to take these members for a ride. I also heard that the hon member is involved in certain movements. I do not know whether he is a driver or a passenger, but it is called a coalition movement.

I want to welcome the move to rationalise the road transport system in South Africa. I think it is long overdue. I believe it has taken almost two years to perfect the laws controlling the transport system. By adopting international standards, we hope to get the co-operation of the independent states, as the hon member for Reservoir Hills stated. However, I say that we should go one step further and see whether we cannot get the cooperation of our foreign neighbours.

With the abolition of the permit system and deregulation and privatisation we will have problems. The present evidence of the problem is the operation of the kombi taxis. On paper, the road quality system looks good, but to put it into operation and maintain good standards is a mammoth task.

I am not being pessimistic but I do not think we can achieve this overnight. We have to start on this immediately and solve problems as they arise. We shall have to have very effective machinery and a very effective and efficient force to man it.

I would urge the hon the Minister that stringent measures for driver’s licence certification be adopted so that licences are not easy to come by and the drivers are quite efficient so that they, in turn, will be able to obey the rules of the road and avoid the accidents mentioned by the hon member for Umzinto.

While we have the law, which is necessary, we also have the regulations of the local authorities. However, the local authority must not place an undue burden on those small businessmen who operate small vehicles, because they operate in difficult circumstances. I know about people being confined to certain areas with narrow streets and small yards where they cannot even park their vehicles. They do not even have the means of trying to get into a consortium or to get open spaces where they can park their vehicles. Local authorities should take those circumstances into consideration and not unduly penalise or burden these people.

This Bill was discussed at great length at the joint committee meeting and I want to compliment those officials who took much time and put much effort into trying to bring about a system that would be acceptable to all South Africans. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to start off with the hon member who spoke first, the hon member for Havenside. I thank him for his support. If I understood him correctly, he referred to the mixed reception that this piece of legislation enjoyed in certain sections. He referred in particular to the fatal accidents that occur on our roads and the road safety that has been endangered as a result of the negligence of drivers.

One cannot agree more with the point raised by the hon member for Havenside. I think last year was one of the worst years that we have ever experienced in South Africa with regard to serious and fatal accidents on our roads. It should cause us all to reconsider our road safety situation.

If this piece of legislation could play a part in promoting greater safety on our roads, 75% of the objectives of this Bill would have been achieved. After all, by regulating transport on our roads we certainly do not want to promote the presence of more cowboys on the roads. Therefore hon members who said that we should be very strict when it comes to licences and the testing of licence holders, expressed sentiments with which one could not agree more.

The hon member referred to clauses 132 and 133, particularly in regard to the power of the local authorities to make regulations. I know the hon member has in mind the scarce facilities where the small operators can house and accommodate their vehicles.

Often these vehicles are left in the street and there is not enough space for them. However, I want to say to the hon member that he must bear in mind that parking, whether it be underground parking or parking under roof, is not the responsibility of the Department of Transport. It is the responsibility of the local authority. If we can exercise a form of pressure on the local authorities to provide for space in this regard and to be lenient, then certainly we will do so.

However, at the same time one must bear in mind that the transport operator or the owner of a vehicle must park his vehicle in such a manner that it will not be offensive to his neighbours and secondly, that it will not be a danger to his neighbours. It is not going to be a very easy situation and one should therefore bear all the circumstances in mind.

The hon member for Umzinto referred to the information system. He was particularly concerned about habitual offenders. It will be impossible to implement the Road Transport Quality System unless we have a foolproof information system. That certainly is the objective of this piece of legislation. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member Mr Thaver gave the background of the Bill and also said that it was there to consolidate the many ordinances and to coordinate the policy. The hon member then referred to the wide power delegated to the Administrator. That is true. While we were busy compiling this piece of legislation, I do not think we ever considered significantly reducing the power of the Administrator, because at that level it forms a most important part of the implementation of the Road Traffic Bill.

The hon member made the point that one should be aware of the corruption regarding the testing of vehicles by municipalities. I am talking about the hon member Mr Thaver now. There are only 200 000 heavy transport vehicles known to be in South Africa. The process for phasing in the testing is to be taken over a period of three years. We will start with the heaviest vehicles first and then move to the lighter vehicles up to the third year.

I would also like to remind the hon member that a testing station, whether it be private or public, will always be registered. Of course, when one can register an institution like that, one must also have the power to deregister it. They will be registered according to certain standards. Obviously the standards will be monitored from time to time by the inspectorate of testing stations. The information system will also in turn monitor the stations. I therefore think that there are adequate ways of ensuring that testing stations will be of a high standard and that corruption will not take place. Obviously, if that comes to light one can immediately withdraw the licence given to a testing station.

The hon member also raised the issue of whether one should not have a co-ordinating body. I think that the Department of Transport is the body which has the overall power to lay down policy. They are also concerned with the issue of disseminating information and I am certain that the Department of Transport, with the assistance of the provinces, will do their utmost to ‘educate’ our local authorities—if I may call it that—about the testing of vehicles and testing for license. It will be a uniform system, make no mistake about that. What applies in Natal will also apply in Cape Town.

One may not always agree with the hon member for Reservoir Hills but he normally makes a very interesting speech and I must say that at one stage I misunderstood the hon member. He referred to when something goes wrong with the “brake system” and I thought he was referring to when something goes wrong with the “brain system”. Of course, both normally can go wrong. It is not always the brake system which goes wrong, it is also the man behind the wheel.

I want to say a special “thank you” to that hon member. He singled out the traffic officer because the traffic officers are often the scapegoats in South Africa. They are the people we play the fool with and they are the source of many jokes and humour. The hon member singled them out as an important factor in maintaining a high standard of roadworthiness and a high standard of behaviour on our roads. I think we should have sympathy with those men who must enforce good laws when it comes to our traffic on the roads—I think it is highly commendable.

The hon member made a point about pollution of the air. Unfortunately that is not within our scope but I take his point very well. He is quite right. There is no doubt that there are some vehicles which have a habit of polluting the air. I have personally had the experience of being in an area with a lot of traffic and one finds that there are fumes coming out of exhaust pipes which can so easily make one ill. There is a lot of truth in it and it has got to be controlled in some way or another.

Then the hon member came to what he called the “toll road disgrace”. Once again I cannot deal with that particular issue in this Bill. It has got nothing to do with it. The toll roads can only be discussed under the National Roads Act and I of course would like to take the hon member up on that particular issue when one gets the opportunity to do so.

There are many issues which have to be settled in South Africa. I would just like to point out that if we want to deregulate our road transport, we have also got to consider whether we have got the money in South Africa to provide adequate and efficient roads.

We must also decide whether we want to burden the taxpayer in South Africa any more; whether the taxpayer is prepared to pay extra in the form of taxes, or whether the person who uses the road, especially for reward, should not pay the major portion of the cost of better roads in South Africa.

That is really the issue, not the question of toll roads. The issue is whether we have got enough money and whether we want to have a deregulated transport market with bad roads. I say we cannot have both. If we want to have a deregulated transport industry in this country then we must have the appropriate roads. Who pays for it is a matter for another debate. I take the hon member’s point that we should persuade the territories around us to come in and to have the same sort of legislation.

The hon member for Merebank has, I think, been a member right from the outset of the Joint Committee on Transport. I thank him for his contribution. He also made a point of trying to get the co-operation of our foreign neighbours. He went on to say that this was an enormous task, and that we were not going to get deregulation overnight. That is quite true, and I should like to conclude with this issue because I think that there is a lot of doubt in people’s minds as to how long we are going to take to implement this new policy and whether we have a timetable in which to do it.

We therefore realise that to implement a wide-ranging transport policy which will be a total departure from what we have previously, is no easy task. It is even more difficult to link this implementation to a definite timetable. However, the transport industry and the public are keen to gain further insight into the implementation programme.

As I have already indicated, the Department of Transport will be responsible for the overall implementation of the policy, but the practical execution will be a matter for the provinces and local authorities. An Implementation Steering Committee comprising the representatives of the provinces, their regional services councils association, the United Municipal Executive and the Commission for Administration has been formed to monitor and guide the execution of the various tasks by the authorities concerned. In addition, the programme is being discussed with parties involved. When finalised, the programme will form the basis upon which the implementation steering committee can monitor progress.

I think it is reasonable to allow an adequate period of time for the authorities involved— under the direction of the provinces—to plan, reorganise and train the staff to execute the new functions to be assigned to them. Quite obviously, the critical task is at present the establishment of the information system, but there are important dates affecting the provisional programme. I should like hon members to note that I am referring to it as the provisional programme.

First there is the enactment of this particular Bill. We hope that it will be as soon as possible, and not later than April this year.

Secondly, we hope to promulgate Our road traffic regulations in December 1989. The Passenger Transport Bill we hope to enact later. We shall begin implementation of the Road Traffic Act in December 1990. The freight permit system will be removed and the passenger permit system amended. In addition, the Road Transportation Act of 1977 will, we hope, no longer apply by March 1992.

The preparation for the implementation of the Road Traffic Bill will take place immediately after enactment. Phasing in of essential elements of the Road Transport Quality System will take place from December 1990 to March 1992.

As far as the information system is concerned, this is the record system relating to the drivers, vehicles and their operators, as well as offences committed by them. This information system will be established soon, and work in this connection will continue until it is firmly established by December 1990.

The other issue raised by hon members was the question of co-operating with our neighbours. Co-ordination with TBVC countries will also start soon and should have the desired mutual benefits and results by October 1992. The same applies to our self-governing territories and work in this connection should be completed by March 1991.

As far as the BLS countries are concerned the co-ordination will start immediately and we hope to have it completed by November 1991. We also hope to have all international agreements finalised and implemented by October 1992.

I thank the hon member for Merebank for having raised this issue of implementation and the programme so that hon members will now understand that we have quite a formidable task ahead of us. However, hon members must not blame us if by 1992 we have not done everything that I have said here today. Therefore, I have been careful in saying that this is a provisional programme but as far as it is humanly possible we will try to stick to this provisional program.

I take much pleasure in concluding the debate on this Bill.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the Bill before the House is to afford greater protection for a wife within the marriage. The committee discussed at length both the advantage and disadvantage … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The committee looked at both the advantage and the disadvantage in as far as the existing laws are concerned. As our law stands today, the husband cannot be prosecuted for the rape of his wife and the Bill is addressing this problem. The Bill also addresses the assault of a wife by her husband wherein she could lay charges and the husband could be prosecuted. I believe the Bill is so designed in order to give greater protection as far as women are concerned. We take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, the amendments proposed in this Bill emanate from the recommendations of the South African Law Commission in the report on its investigation regarding women and sexual offences in South Africa.

I believe this is the perfect time to deal with this Bill and approve of it. I say this in the light of all the cases of child abuse and wife-bashing unearthed recently. I think we live in a sick society and such problems have to be addressed urgently. I believe this Bill is a move in that direction.

Clause 1 of the Bill before us this afternoon in particular has been the subject of a great deal of discussion in and outside of Parliament. Long before this Bill was introduced in Parliament strong opinions were expressed concerning the subject matter of the clause, namely whether a man ought to be convicted for the rape of his wife.

In its mammoth report on women and sexual offences in South Africa the South African Law Commission recommended that the existing legislation insisting that a man cannot rape his wife be done away with. In making this recommendation the South African Law Commission did, however, emphasise the fact that of all the aspects raised at a seminar organised by this commission during its investigation this had evoked the most intensive discussion. It has also stressed the fact that when the matter was put to the vote at the seminar there was an almost equal division views; that is those in favour of the retention of the status quo and those in favour of the abolition of the husband’s immunity from prosecution.

The commission in its report also emphasised the fact that from the comments received from the public on this subject it was very clear that there is and indeed can be no unanimity relating to reform in this regard. Strong and valid opinions have been expressed on both sides. Even after the Bill had been introduced in Parliament, and when clause 1 which originally gave effect to the recommendation of the SA Law Commission was being discussed in the joint committee, there were many lengthy meetings in respect of the clause. I mention all this to show that we are dealing with an extremely sensitive and emotional matter in respect of which a decision cannot be taken lightly.

If one considers the history of clause 1, which I have set out briefly, and if one then evaluates the clause as it now stands before the House, I think one will not easily find another mechanism which so happily addresses the problem of rape within a marriage to the satisfaction of most people as does clause 1 of this Bill. It is in my opinion a wonderful compromise between two utterly divergent views, and above all, it addresses the problem in question. I have no hesitation in supporting this clause.

Clause 2 of the Bill, which is less contentious but no less important, prohibits the cross-examination of any male or female victim against or in connection with whom any offence of a sexual nature is alleged to have been committed, about his or her previous sexual experience with persons other than the accused. Such cross-examination will only be allowed by the court if it is shown to be relevant.

Clause 2 has my full support. It will prevent the unnecessary harassment and embarrassment of witnesses in court proceedings of this nature. I would not like to say how the hon member for Reservoir Hills will react to cases like this.

The SA Law Commission consulted all interested parties in respect of the provisions of this Bill. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I think everyone has the utmost respect for the SA Law Commission which consists of highly qualified and well-experienced jurists. One does not lightly disagree with the SA Law Commission.

I must confess—I make no apology in this particular instance—to having the temerity to disagree with the SA Law Commission. Certainly the joint committee which dealt with this matter also had the temerity to disagree with the recommendations of the SA Law Commission.

Law is not a sometime thing. Law is not an instant thing. Law is an organism. It is as delicate as silk but it has to be as strong as the strongest fabric of steel. It has evolved over thousands of years. Some of us who have perhaps had a little experience in legal matters felt that one must not tamper too easily with the common law which has evolved over thousands of years.

The joint committee has been criticised by various women’s organisations. When one feels strongly about a certain matter one has to be prepared to take the criticism that comes as a result of taking a particular stand. Not everyone in the joint standing committee was of the same view—we had divergent views—but in the end this is the Bill which the joint standing committee produced.

It provides for the greater punishment of a man who disregards his wife’s wishes and who does certain things without the consent of his wife. It does not abrogate a fundamental aspect of the institution of marriage. In the Christian ethic the marriage is a sacred institution, as it is in the Muslim ethic and the Hindu ethic too. We had to be very careful not to assault that. The sociology behind this had to be taken very carefully into account.

Insofar as clause 2 is concerned, I understand that at one time in a magistrate’s court in Bloemfontein, an attorney named Coetzee—I hope there is no connection—hammered a female witness when he was defending a client. He hammered her so much that the woman fainted in the witness box and as a result—I would not say it was a miscarriage of justice—the case could not continue. This clause will prevent that kind of hammering.

The important thing is that a complainant in the case of abuse of this nature should never be subject to victimisation at the hands of an attorney or an advocate who is cleverer than she is, has a better education, who might have a sharp tongue and who sometimes—and this happens— is so lacking in compassion that the only interest he has is in winning the case and he does not care two hoots who gets hurt in the process. Therefore females in that kind of situation will be given reasonable protection, not 100% protection. They cannot go beyond the reasonable protection which clause 2 intends to give to women in those circumstances.

However, we are not unaware that there are certain dangers involved as well. The Letford case is not abrogated by clause 2. In the Letford case the judgement was for the protection of males who are wrongly accused as a result of an intention to blackmail or various other circumstances. I am reminded of a judgement given by the former Mr Justice Rumpff when he was Judge President of the Transvaal, when a White woman accused a Black servant of a very serious offence. After having heard all the evidence, Rumpff said:

In that particular case the invitation had apparently been extended to this man and after the event, the woman cried rape. However, there is that danger. That danger is to some extent provided for in clause 2. There is the other danger of a professional, and of course professionals of that kind are not to be found only among the female, they exist among certain politicians as well. That kind of professional, and I think the House knows what I am referring to, may have been engaging in this activity and demanding a higher fee. If that professional wants to extort, she will also make a false claim. There is that danger, but the courts have the discretion to see to it that in that kind of case an accused is also given adequate protection against a false accusation. This Bill to an extent meets the exigencies of the situation. It is in a measure a compromise, but it is a good compromise and we therefore commend the Bill.

Mr Chairman, in terms of our law, at the present time, a man cannot be prosecuted for raping his own wife.

†The South African Law Commission, in its investigation regarding women and sexual offences in South Africa, and after much debate and consideration, came to the conclusion that the existing immunity of the husband in this regard is outdated and amounts to an unjust and unequal treatment of the two sexes in the eyes of the law. It is therefore recommended that it be provided by law that a husband may be prosecuted for the rape of a wife if the Attorney-General having jurisdiction consents thereto.

Although the Bill before us today does not give effect to the recommendation of the Commission as such, in my opinion it goes a long way towards addressing the problem with which the Commission wrestled for such a long time, namely the ever-increasing problem of rape within marriage, although it may be considered that in certain circumstances a husband should be criminally charged for rape. A marriage contract guarantees sex relations between spouses, but rape is a serious crime and can give rise to a death sentence.

This would be most absurd in the case of spouses. To be pragmatic and practical, the joint committee felt that any use of violence in marriage should be condemned, but this should not go beyond the extent of reasonable possibilities of reconciliation. A charge of rape may result in the destruction of the marriage.

Clause 1 of the Bill, as has already been said, is intended to give wives more protection from the unlawful sexual onslaughts of their husbands, because it provides that, and I quote:

I think this clause is a good one and it will give substance to the legislative attitude towards the men who abuse their wives. It is a clause which is needed in our sick society. I therefore welcome it.

Clause 2 deals with the cross-examination of any victim, male or female, about his or her previous sexual experience. The ambit of prohibition will now include the prohibition of cross-examination of a complainant. As far as clause 2 is concerned, I have no qualms about giving it my support. It is intended to help relieve the trauma experienced in court by the victims of sexual attacks and I wish to express the hope that this clause will lead to more victims being prepared to face their assailants in court. We need to rid our society of the scourge from which it is suffering at present as far as these matters are concerned, and the Bill before us is indeed a move in the right direction.

*I think this is a good piece of legislation and I support it.

Mr Chairman, I hasten to thank those hon members who support the Bill and I wish to add my voice to the cautioning utterances of the hon member for Reservoir Hills, because what he has said is valid, namely that there may be abuse of both the provisions. It is possible. However, it seems to me that the joint committee, in its wisdom, has provided sufficient checks and balances to enable the courts to sort out any abuse of the protection that is being afforded to people under these two clauses.

The second point that I would like to make, especially in reply to the hon member for Actonville but also to other hon members, is that the protection that is afforded to people who may have to give evidence of their characters, applies also to males. Subsection (4) states, and I quote:

This relates to subsection (2), which would then read, and I quote:

In other words, he may be subject to cross-examination in regard to the alleged offence. The same would apply to male and female alike and no discrimination is built into this clause.

The question of rape within the bonds of marriage is a very delicate and sensitive issue. Forgive me, but the hon member for Reservoir Hills is prone to quips and with his prowess and his command of the English language he is capable of recalling judgements and instances, and even of quoting from cases in Bloemfontein that, as far as I remember, never took place. Nevertheless, I would like to repay him in equal terms. I can say now that since he opposes this Bill he is siding with the pro-rapists. Fortunately the pro-rapists are not outnumbered by those who are not prepared to rape.

[Inaudible.]

Nevertheless, it is a compromise and I am the first to concede that it is not going to satisfy the purists. Purists will say that it is in any event not lawful for a husband to commit violence in whatever form against his wife. It is a criminal offence and therefore it is punishable. That is how the purists will argue. They will say that we are saying nothing new, and that we are actually confusing the officer who has to inflict punishment. We are not even giving him an option, but are making it compulsory that if violence and sexual intercourse occur at the same time, evidence of intercourse should and must be regarded as aggravating circumstances.

People will argue that we are confusing the issue because every court of law has the inherent discretion to take cognisance of either mitigating or aggravating circumstances. We are perhaps even back at the situation when we considered whether having consumed—for instance—liquor should be regarded as aggravating circumstances, and whether this should be incorporated in an Act.

We decided that that was what the public wanted. We know that it is contradictory to the purists’ view of the law. We admit that, but we also realise that this is what the people want. If we have seen this rule of immunity of a husband in the case of the rape of his wife, abolished in countries such as Russia and Poland, why should it not be done in this country, which claims to be a civilised country that acts according to the best accepted norms all over the world?

Therefore the compromise seems to be a valid one. It is a defensible compromise that carries the support of the majority of this House and I think I should rest my case by saying that in future we would probably see fewer assaults on wives and witness more complaints, until it has been sorted out that complaints will not be regarded as final testimony of rape. Personally, I think that the police may be inundated with complaints until such time as the courts of law have given clear guide-lines as to how this clause will be applied in practice.

I foresee that there may be a spate of complaints initially. There may be abuse. That is true, but it will act as a lighthouse against those people who have been disregarding the mind, the body and the soul of a wife.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the concept of pest control is laudable. It is absolutely necessary, but when one goes about doing the right thing in the wrong way, it is also wrong.

My concern here is that if anybody has erred it is the Klopper Commission. The reason for legislation providing for pest control and against importation of propagating materials such as seeds and cuttings from foreign countries into our country, is to combat foreign pests invading the farming industry of our country.

That being the question, why does the Department of Agriculture freely allow dangerous herbicides to be used in the farming sector? This does far more damage than any pest that is introduced by importation. Let us look at 240D, for instance. Despite scientific investigation, it has been proved that any broad-leaf crop is destroyed when planted within 15 km of an area where 240D has been sprayed. The evidence is there, practically on the fields!

I would like to know why the Department of Agriculture has paid no heed to this. It was widely publicised in the press. They highlighted Tala Valley and I know why. Tala Valley is a White-owned vegetable-producing area of big farmers and that is why they gave them better coverage. Simultaneously, side by side, there are small Indian market gardeners who are suffering and bearing far heavier consequences than any of the big farmers, because their entire crops of cabbage, lettuce, marrows and tomatoes are being wiped out by this injudicious application of 240D. Thus I take strong exception to any half-baked attempt at controlling foreign pests which will ultimate prove to be detrimental to the normal advancement or existence of the fanning industry.

I now wish to refer to clause 2 of the Bill. In clause 2 the concept of privatisation has gone overboard. This clause allows the hon the Minister to delegate his powers and to take action against anybody who is not even an officer of his department. If Farmer Brown is envious of Farmer White, Farmer Brown can apply for the delegation of powers. It is also specified in the Bill that whoever implements the provisions of this Act, shall do so at his own expense. Farmer Brown can, out of prejudice, to harm Farmer White or Farmer Black, apply the provisions of this Bill.

Clause 2 provides for a far too dangerous power for someone to handle who is not an officer. The hon the Minister’s powers shall be delegated to all his officers or “to any person who is not an officer”. Any person is any man on the street. If Farmer Brown prohibits or forbids anyone to hunt on his land, that person can utilise or invoke the provisions of clause 2 of this Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, with reference to the Agricultural Pests Amendment Bill, 1989, the Commission of Inquiry into the Cultivar Purity and Illegal Importation of Certain Vine Propagating Material (Klopper Commission) has made certain recommendations in its report (RP 88/1987) with a view to intensifying control over the importation of propagating material, thereby reducing the risk of the introduction of foreign agricultural pests. The primary object of the Bill is to implement the recommendations of the Klopper Commission.

I would like to commend the hon the hon the Minister, his Director-General and other officials in his department for acting swiftly in implementing the recommendations of the Klopper Commission. We know that commissions are costly and in some cases their recommendations are put on the shelf to collect dust. This department is certainly not guilty of that.

Clause 1—which amends section 1 of Act 36 of 1983—deals mainly with definitions which have to be changed to keep in line with the new constitutional dispensation to take care of the present situation. Another amendment is of a technical nature as the result of the introduction of the Sea Fishery Act of 1988.

Clause 2—which amends section 2 of Act 36 of 1983—deals with the assignment of powers and duties to non-officers, placing this in the correct perspective. It now makes provision for the hon the Minister’s authority in future to be restricted to the assignment of posts and duties of the executive officer. Subsection (4) also serves as an instrument for the privatisation of certain powers and duties of the executive officer but he will retain overall control over the performance thereof.

Clause 3 amends section 3 of Act 36 of 1983. Subsection (3) determines that the executive officer may consent that imported controlled goods may be inspected outside official hours against payment of a prescribed fee. It empowers the executive officer to prescribe fees for Government functions and services that might become necessary from time to time and to recover the costs of such services from the person benefitting therefrom.

Clause 4 amends section 4 of Act 36 of 1983. Subsection (1) authorises the executive officer to require certain actions from persons by whom or on whose behalf controlled goods were imported, but does not grant him any power in respect of other persons possessing or in charge of certain goods. The Klopper Commission identified this as a serious deficiency in the Act, especially in the case of ‘smuggled’ goods when it is extremely difficult to identify the importer.

Because of the time limit I am unable to comment on the other clauses of the Bill. The National Parks Board is concerned about the possible detrimental effects of the combatting of redbilled quelea on wildlife in the parks under its control. At the insistence of the said Board it is therefore provided that the combating of redbilled quelea may only be undertaken with the approval of said Board.

All interested parties were informed of the proposed legislation and afforded the opportunity to comment thereon. The provisions of this Bill have been generally accepted by them.

In conclusion I wish to place on record my very sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon the Deputy Minister and the Director-General and his staff for the very comprehensive explanatory memorandum prepared for members of the joint committee. This has, I think, been done professionally and I want to congratulate the department on it.

Mr Chairman, the illegal importation of vine cuttings to South Africa a few years ago seems to have triggered these amendments in terms of the Agricultural Pests Amendment Bill. The report of the commission of enquiry chaired by Mr C F Klopper into the cultivar purity and illegal importation of certain vine propagating material was tabled in Parliament on 21 August 1987. The commission’s investigation established that more than 20 vine cultivars had been illegally imported.

The illegal importers were blind to the serious phytosanitary risks thus created for the wine industry. The commission was of the opinion that all the importers, including the accessories who benefited from illegal importation should be found guilty in a criminal court on account of contravention of the Agricultural Pests Act. The commission was of the opinion that although the farmers contravened regulations, prosecution would be undesirable and could have a negative effect on the wine industry.

The commission recommended that the Directorate of Plant and Sea Control should in future act diligently against illegal importers and should publicise these cases so that the perpetrators would soon realise that the game was not worth the candle.

The commission also believed that importers would in future keep to the straight and narrow because the Vine Improvement Board had drawn up suggestions for speeding up procedures for importation so that good propagating material would be available legally.

It would appear that a delay in the granting of permits to import good propagating material was the reason why the farmers had to resort to illegal means. At this stage I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister what steps have been taken to speed up imports of propagating material.

It is in order to overcome situations such as the one investigated by the Klopper Commission and the control of other agricultural pests that this Bill has been amended. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill reminds me of something that occurred when I was quite young. My mind goes back to my younger days, and I should like to go back into history a little if I may.

One is mindful of the cotton boll weevil which wreaked havoc throughout the plantations of South Africa in about the early 1920s and 30s. Whether the weevil was carried in a dormant state in a seed or was imported in any other way, I am not quite certain. One thing, however, is certain and that is that it affected the cottonwool market drastically. Eventually a remedy was found and cotton planting could continue normally again. However, this weevil did, of course, appear from time to time. It affected the thread of the cotton itself.

Then came the other menace, which affected the sugar-cane plantations. We also had the problem of the red eelworm in certain varieties of sugarcane. Whether it was found in the cane brought from Cuba or that which was brought from Japan, known as the POJ—it was a very thick type of cane—I am not quite certain. The important thing, however, is that the weevil was imported into this country and to a great extent it effectively destroyed the cane that was being planted at that time. What is really important is, because it affected those varieties of cane that were easily infected by this weevil, new varieties of sugar cane had to be imported and new methods of cultivation were brought into operation. Instead of planting the sugar cane whole into the furrow as they used to do at the time, they cut it up into pieces and then dipped both ends into a chemical solution to prevent infestation by weevils or eelworms. However, there was also the problem of dry rot coming into these two ends. Of course, as a result of preventing these weevils coming into the cane the crop as such was affected to a great extent. However, eventually a sugar cane that could be planted without fear of this kind of infestation was obtained.

In history we also had the maize stockborer. Whether it was a real importation as such or not, to my mind it did affect maize in the USA, but it also affected maize in South Africa to a great extent. It is still not eradicated to the extent that we should like it to be. It does affect production to a great extent. In effecting control measures, one has to ensure that the insecticide or pesticide—whatever one calls it—does aim at eliminating the pest itself in either the egg stage or the larva stage. It should, however, not eliminate the plant. If that pesticide destroys both the plant and the infestation it is of no use. As mentioned by the hon member for Camperdown, if one uses a pesticide to destroy the pest it must not destroy the plant.

Since I said I am mentioning a part of history, we also had the locust infestation. That was not imported—I do not think anybody takes the chance of importing locusts. Neither are locusts apartheid conscious. They just come in when they like. One would look up and see that the sky is red. One then knows that it is a locust invasion. The method of destroying locusts, applied mainly in the hopper stage or in the egg stage, is to spray them with arsenic solution or to mix arsenic with foodstuff which they, of course gobble up very fast.

Order! I regret to advise the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I support the BiU.

Mr Chairman, it is heartening that hon members do support this Bill. The hon member for Umzinto commented on the memorandum and the efficient way in which it was compiled. I think that attributed to giving the joint committee a reasonable chance of understanding what is happening. I am glad that he mentioned those few words of thanks to members of this department who, I think, are very efficient. These people are some of the most competent officials that we have in the Public Service. These words do mean something to them and I would like to add to that comment. I think that on asking, those people will offer one all the assistance they can give.

It was interesting to listen to the hon member for Camperdown who actually addressed something which does not really fall under this Bill. He mentioned the question of hormone weedkillers which really does not have much to do with insects and pests. There will be an opportunity when we can debate this point more fully but I want to respond to some extent to what the hon member said.

There was a slight accusation that the department did not do anything about this. The problem of weedkillers is to some extent a difficult one to handle. If one has to make a decision, it has to be based on scientific facts so that one reaches the right conclusions and can take the right steps based on those facts.

One works with minute quantities of dangerous substances. If they are used properly, there is no problem. They have been used for 15 to 20 years and there have been no problems. We are monitoring the situation and we have sent people overseas for this.

We can discuss this in greater detail at a later stage. At this point I would like to console the hon member by saying that we in the department have given this matter a high priority and we are gathering scientific information so that we can take the necessary steps if required.

I know the hon member is a very efficient farmer himself. He must have used insecticides to some extent, otherwise he would never have had a crop on the land. We would like to try to establish a fanning community with as few pests as possible so that we can use as few chemicals as possible, or no chemicals at all. That, however, is an impossibility which cannot be achieved and that is why we would like to prevent the importation of weevils that we do not have.

The problems addressed in this Bill were highlighted by the recommendations made by the Klopper Commission which pointed out some very interesting facts. I want to say to the hon member for Northern Coast that we are taking the necessary steps to remedy the situation where people took the law in their own hands and imported some vines. There is a vine commission which has sorted out the problems.

Again, however, it is not an easy procedure. If one imports vegetable material that is infected with viruses, it takes a long time to estabfish the nature of those viruses and whether they are harmful. As pointed out by the Klopper Commission, we were lucky that it did not have detrimental effects and that we did not import a new disease into this country. We all learnt from that experience.

I think we have a valuable piece of legislation before us which remedies the shortcomings and gives guidance as to how to deal with other pests.

Lastly I would like to comment on the words of the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who also supports the Bill. He made an interesting comment in regard to the locust infestation. I think people have the idea that locusts are a thing of the past. Our department, however, has an ongoing action against locusts. It can also be seen in the provisions contained in this Bill.

I would like to give some statistics in this regard. Ever since January 1988 we have been prepared for an outbreak of locusts after the drought. Since September 1988 and up to 24 February of this year we have killed off 30 148 immature swarms—that is at the hopper stage—and 1 387 mature swarms. This has been done by officials of the department while the public does not actually realise that we are on the verge of an attack by locusts. As it is, we have the problem under control. One can imagine the damage to the crops in the Free State and Natal if these small hoppers had matured and flown to the north, as we had experienced in the 1940s and 1950s.

I think this Bill is very necessary and I thank hon members for their support thereof.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, prior to 1982 the veterinary and para-veterinary practice was governed by the Veterinary Board, which was State controlled. Through representations made by the veterinary and para-veterinary profession, the Veterinary Board was replaced by the South African Veterinary Council. The South African Veterinary Council is now an autonomous body and the majority of its members are elected by persons in the profession. The Council has encountered certain problems in the performance of its statutory powers and has submitted amendments to the Act.

The Bill provides for the following matters: That the membership of the Council be increased; that students undergoing practical training be allowed to perform acts normally pertaining to veterinary and para-veterinary professions only if they are performed under the supervision and by direction of registered persons; that the concept “for gain, directly or indirectly” be extended so as to place it beyond doubt that persons practising veterinary and para-veterinary professions, in the course of their employment by an employer, with inclusion of the State, also do so “for gain”. This provision has become necessary as a result of uncertainty whether such persons are answerable to the Council. The Bill also provides that close corporations complying with certain requirements may also be registered to practise veterinary and para-veterinary professions; that the Council be authorised to require that persons who would otherwise automatically qualify for registration, pass an examination if more than three years have elapsed since they obtained the prescribed qualifications, or if they have not practiced the profession for more than three years. The Bill also states that the provision in terms of which a person may not be registered to practise as a veterinarian and a veterinarian specialist simultaneously, be deleted. Provisions are proposed in terms of which a member’s interest in a close corporation can be held for a certain period by a person or an estate when the registration of a member is terminated, withdrawn or suspended or when a member dies, without the registration of the corporation being terminated thereby; that an inquiry by the Council into an act or omission by a close corporation may be held simultaneously against the corporation and a member or employee thereof; and that the provisions relating to inquiries by the Council be supplemented to enable the Council to appoint a proforma complainant who will also lead the evidence at the inquiry and will cross-examine the witnesses.

The Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs have advised that. All interested parties were granted the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment and the committee was also advised that the proposals were generally accepted. In view of the fact that amendments helped to improve the Bill, I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill is most welcome, being not controversial. It is, however, an important change from the Veterinary Advisory Board before 1982, which was in actual fact an extension of the State. Since then the Veterinary Council, as reconstructed in 1982, has become an autonomous body, which has enabled the council to function well. The close corporation is a new dimension to the Veterinary Council and will be restricted to members only as per the Close Corporation Act. The department will monitor and oversee the functions of these close corporations.

I want to highlight some difficulties which I would like to be addressed. I subscribe to the view that in relation to the animal population in the Republic, ranging from domestic pets to stockfarming operations designed to meet the dietary needs of our population, there is a restricted supply of veterinary surgeons which is far—and noticeably so—below the relevant demand for such professions.

Save for graduates who qualify at the Royal Veterinary College in the United Kingdom, all other overseas-trained veterinary surgeons have to submit to a local two-part written examination and an oral or practical test. The shortfall in relation to demand and supply in this specialised field warrants a more sympathetic approach in the matter of registration of overseas-trained personnel. The severe shortage in the supply of such personnel, especially in non-White housing estates, for example vast complexes such as KwaMashu, Chatsworth, Soweto, Guguletu and Phoenix, should underline the need for a more sympathetic approach to the problem.

In the light of the foregoing, it is recommended that the overseas veterinary surgeons be granted restricted registration, as in the case of medical graduates trained in India who are restricted to practising in hospitals. In this case posts may be created for them to work under supervision of State veterinarians, and abattoirs and district centres could be yet another avenue.

The South African Veterinary Council has identified certain problem areas in the Act and some of the amendments in this Bill are at their request. All interested parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on these proposals and the provisions of this Bill have been generally accepted by them.

Here again, I want to place on record my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon the Deputy Minister, the Director-General and the staff for supplying the members of joint committee with a professionally prepared explanatory memorandum, which has helped us a great deal.

Mr Chairman, I am somewhat taken aback by the speech made by the hon member for Umzinto. He praises this Bill wholeheartedly, not knowing what he is talking about.

Yes, you know everything.

Of course, I am an expert, Sir. That is why I am in Parliament. Otherwise I would be farming.

This Bill defines certain expressions used therein. The Bill also provides that whereas in terms of the Act of 1982 para-veterinary members were only nominated or co-opted onto the Veterinary Council, they can now be elected. So far so good.

Let us examine the amendment of section 24 of Act 19 of 1982. In 1985 and 19861, together with hon members of this House, made representations to the hon the Minister of Agriculture and his director-general about veterinarians who train in India, in other words, South Africans of Indian origin. Up till now those unfortunate qualified people are not even allowed to practice as para-veterinarians. The closest they can come, as a result of the representation made by hon members of this House, is to become meat inspectors at abattoirs. Considering this anomaly, I wonder what made the hon member for Umzinto say that this is a very good Bill.

I appeal to the hon the Minister on behalf of these unfortunate people. They qualified outside South Africa not because of choice, but under sufferance. There is no adequate provision in our country to train people who are not White as veterinarians. As a result, those who are animal lovers and are keen to serve the animal kingdom qualify as veterinarians outside this country.

When they arrive back here, to their dismay and utter amazement, they are forbidden by an Act of Parliament to practise in the country. They are not even given a test or tried. Their qualifications are just not worth anything.

That anomaly has to be addressed by the hon the Minister and his department. After all, did the Government or the South African Veterinary Council check on the curriculum of the various universities to see whether their syllabi corresponded with the tuition that is given in this country? What are the reasons, other than one simple thing?

I can say without fear of contradiction that the exclusion of people who trained as veterinarians in India, is just blatant discrimination because of the colour of their skins. In the first place they were not given equal opportunities within the bounds of this country to train as veterinarians. Out of love for animals they go out of the country to qualify. When they come back at great expense they are still denied … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon members for their support for this Bill. I shall come to the hon member for Camperdown later on. I think that, as was mentioned, it is a well-prepared Bill and that some shortcomings in the main Act are very suitably addressed.

I would not like to waste the time of the House on more points that we agree on, but want to come back immediately to the hon members for Camperdown and Umzinto who voiced some complaints as to the registration of veterinarians in South Africa.

The point regarding veterinary practices is that in South Africa one finds about 80% of well-described animal diseases, whereas in the other countries such as New Zealand, Britain and Europe, where other facilities are, they only have 20% of the diseases. In those countries they concentrate on the diseases that exist there, so in the syllabi of the universities where veterinarians are trained, they concentrate on what is important to them and not on what is necessarily important to us here in South Africa. This is where the discrepancy time and again arises.

We have referred this matter to the Veterinary Council many times. They investigated it and then said that they would give such a person credit for the knowledge that he had acquired at that institution to the extent that it corresponded with the knowledge that we would like a student to obtain. As hon members know, certain universities have different syllabi and that makes it necessary to compare different universities.

I have a list here of universities of which the degrees are accepted and recognised by the South African Veterinary Council because their training procedure is basically the same as that in South Africa. The universities are the University of Pretoria, the Medical University of Southern Africa, the Massey University of New Zealand, the Universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Liverpool in Great Britain, the Royal London Academy and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons of England. Their and our degrees are mutually interchangeable in the sense that we have basically the same courses. They specialise in certain training for South African conditions.

The point that I would like to make is that the possession of any veterinary qualification will not necessarily lead to automatic registration in South Africa. The ability of that person carrying that certificate has to be evaluated. For that reason the Veterinary Council of South Africa has a system according to which a veterinarian who does not qualify can write an examination on South African veterinary problems. If he passes that examination, he can automatically be registered. There is ample time to do that.

Mr Chairman, is that qualifying examination free of charge and free of studies? Can a person who qualifies at the University of Madras come to South Africa and write that examination without any further studies?

Yes, he can do that. In other words, he asks for an examination and then, at a suitable time arranged by him, he writes that examination. There is also a difference regarding the recognition of degrees obtained at Indian universities. I cannot remember now, but there are two universities that are concerned here. The University of Madras is one and then there is another university which I cannot recall at the moment. However, the one here is recognised up to the fourth level of a degree that is obtained from the University of Pretoria. The other one is up to the third year level.

One of the students has, for instance, applied and with the recognition of the fourth year level, he subscribed to the Medical University of Southern Africa, Medunsa. He suspended the course of his own accord. I do not know why he did not continue. However, the opportunities are there. The necessary permission can be granted to any person who wishes to continue his studies from that level of recognition in order to obtain his degree.

I have referred similar cases to the Veterinary Council on many occasions. I think hon members must accept that they will not look at this in any discriminatory way. We are looking at this in terms of what a person knows. We would like to create conditions in which such a person can increase his knowledge so that he will not experience any problems with being a veterinarian in South Africa. I think we should stick to that. I thank all members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the Act is being amended to ensure the continued existence of the Council for Mineral Technology as a juristic person known as Mintek. Mintek will undertake research for better utilisation of mineral resources in South Africa and will foster the establishment and expansion of industries in the field of minerals and products derived thereof.

We have no objection to supporting the Bill. I hope that the hon the Minister will take this message from this House.

Mr Chairman, I speak on behalf of my benchmate, the hon member for Mariannhill, who is ill. We on this side of the House have no problem with this Bill.

I am pleased to see that clause 10 of the Bill makes adequate provisions for an employee of Mintek who is seconded to another state or another government. He will be adequately provided for. May I just appeal to the hon the Minister that we would like to see more people of colour employed in his department. We from this side of the House also support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, mineral technology comprises two components. One is the Board, which is the policy-making organ of mineral technology. Then one has the Council for Mineral Technology known as Mintek which deals with trading. This Bill draws a clear distinction between these two components of the hon the Minister’s department. There is the Board which is a policy-making institution and Mintek which deals with trading.

I should like to support what other hon members have said here. Without any further ado, I wish to say that I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon members for Havenside, Lenasia Central and Camperdown for supporting this Bill.

As far as the employment of coloured people in Mintek is concerned, there is absolutely no discrimination and anyone with the qualifications needed for a specific post will be considered on merit. I can assure the hon member that it will be done whenever such applications are received.

I thank hon members for supporting the measure.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.