Mr Chairperson, hon members, I must say that the quality of the debate has been very interesting and encouraging. It shows that hon members have really been doing their constituency work and have brought up issues that come from constituencies. I think that would help us go a long way, as a department, in responding to the needs of the communities that we have to serve.
Maybe if one could comment briefly on the issues raised by hon members, I would like to say that some of them, indeed, were an affirmation of our stated policy. Some members came with views and proposals regarding what we can do to improve the work that we have to undertake, that of land redistribution and agricultural development. But others, I must say, were a bit disappointing.
I would like to respond to the points raised by the hon MEC Van Rensburg concerning the commitment that he said the Western Cape government has made towards improving the lot of emerging farmers in the Western Cape. I think one of the measures for me that would determine how far we have to go in the Western Cape is to what extent, in terms of our farmer settlement programme, we would be able to establish black wine producers, wine makers and exporters. I think that would be a challenge.
If one looks at the cost and at the potential that exists in the Western Cape in this industry, it, indeed, would have been a well-spent expense if we were able to introduce emerging farmers into this industry. I must say that our contribution to this will remain that of ensuring that we facilitate access to our markets, which is part of our responsibility as the national department, and that we work with provinces in order to support those who are entering this sphere.
In this instance I must say that I am pleased to announce that we are looking forward to signing a mutual agreement on the SPS measures during the impending visit by the Chinese President, which should go a long way towards facilitating access to the world's sought-after market of China. For me, even if we could get access to just one market in one of the provinces of China for our products, we would have done very well indeed. [Interjections.]
I would also like to comment again on the issues raised by hon Versveld. Owing to insufficient time, I may have spoken very fast and there may have been confusion regarding the food security programme and other programmes that we are undertaking as a department. The issue might not have been made clear enough.
One of our commitments, also in terms of our policy, is to make sure that household and national food security remain our core objective as a department. However, in order for us to maximise our resources, we need to work together with the various line function departments which also have an interest in household food security. It is not that we are saying that issues of welfare do not concern us, but we are saying that welfare issues, nutrition issues which fall under health and the community gardens programme, which is encouraged by the community public works programme, contain elements which are very important for agriculture, when it comes to providing for household food security. For that reason, we as Government will remain committed to that programme. I must say that the issue raised by hon Taabe around the situation in which we find ourselves, particularly in areas of Mpumalanga, concerning labour tenants, points to the importance of dealing with the issue of land reform in South Africa. If I may remind hon members, the legislation on labour tenancy and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act seek to create certainty in terms of the security of tenure of people who have been working on farms for a long time, as well as those who, when those farms were bought by their owners, were found already living there and turned into labourers.
It is a sad situation, particularly in areas of the Free State, Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal and the Northern Cape, to find that there is collusion between the security forces, the commandos and the justice system, and that these groups are not willing to ensure that they adhere to the legislation that these two Houses have passed. We continue to find that evictions occur. I must say that this is a cause for concern, because it continues to remind us of our land dispossession history, which we are seeking to change.
Apart from introducing legislation, the department has embarked on a programme to educate the current magistrates and judges, so that they may understand what they need to do when they adjudicate on matters of labour tenancy and extension of security of tenure. However, the long-term issue that we need to deal with is that of creating permanency on the security of tenure of farmworkers and farm dwellers.
I think we need to revisit the issue raised by Comrade Barbara Thomson, namely that of land prices in South Africa, particularly in respect of current owners. In a number of instances the reason we are having difficulties acquiring land in order to assist farmworkers and residents is because of the price attached to that land.
With regard to the cases which the Rev Moatshe has raised about restitution in the North West, part of the reason we are not able to settle some of the claims is because the prices have been pitched so high. If we were to deal with only a few of those claims, it would take up the entire restitution budget. This is a matter that we have to revisit. I think all of us as public representatives will have to come to a determination of what is just and equitable. This will call for sensitivity and understanding from those who are current occupiers of that land. If we deal with this situation, we will go a long way in fast-tracking the pace of the restitution process.
I heard the hon Conroy say that at the pace at which we are working - I am sorry, I am not sure whether it was him or the hon Van Rensburg - it will take us 20 years to complete the process. I do not think that is really a goal we should set ourselves. Perhaps it could be through circumstances, but if we actually extend the period in which we will settle our restitution process, we will encounter problems. We will never be able to deal with issues of tension such as we are raising today, something we seek to avoid. The more the others are waiting and seeing their land being put to productive use by those from whom the land needs to change hands, the more problems we will encounter. I think it is a matter to which we should all be committed. This is one of the programmes that, where possible, we need to fast-track.
With regard to the issue around import tariffs, it is maybe important to indicate the following to the hon member concerned. The National Marketing Council, as well as the department, have been working with the BTT, which is the Board on Tariffs and Trade. All of them have been working together with the Department of Trade and Industry in order to ensure that the kind of tariffs that are introduced are, firstly, in line with our WTO commitments, but at the same time are not just used as a barrier to trade with other countries, because this is what we are fighting for with our competitors in their countries as well.
Surely, in our work we have always been mindful that some of the countries that we trade with are still overly subsidised in terms of their production, which then creates some form of distortion. My own view is that we must continue through this world system to fight for the reduction and actually complete elimination of subsidies in those countries, so that we can all participate on the same playing field. It is a matter that we are continuing to work at, but it also means that we have to sharpen our instruments. For example, how do we deal with dumping, as well as put in place countervailing measures to protect our producers? It is a matter that we are looking at.
The issue of the ARC budget may not have been raised in either my speech or that of the Deputy Minister. However, we share the concern about that. What is important for me, is to determine to what extent we are using the limited budget the ARC has in order to promote the public good. It is challenge, not only for the Ministry but also for this House, to look at what amount of the budget of the ARC goes towards achieving our national objectives, taking into consideration that the ARC legislation does allow it to leverage other resources from the private sector if they have to do work for private individuals. The question is: Are they costing correctly? Do they count what they do? Are they overstretched? Do we need to refine our institutions of the ARC in order to get maximum benefit for the current resources?
However, for me the larger question is the budget of the science councils in South Africa that we need to look at. The ARC is just one part of that. If hon members will remember, the ARC budget appears on our budget as a transfer from the Ministry of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. I think the challenge that we face is how to re-examine the entire science budget in South Africa, in other words that of the ARC, the CSIR and other science institutes, especially when taking into consideration the role that science and technology will play in this century. I think that it is a matter we would need to look at.
There are issues which I think Mama Ndzanga correctly raised, which one may unfortunately not be able to deal with in detail. However, some of those issues actually relate to old programmes that were dealt with in the past five years, such as the R62 million grant which was not actually a production loan, but assistance in respect of infrastructure development for emerging farmers.
With regard to other questions, I would actually appeal to hon members and ask whether it is possible for them to give me some of those questions so that we can respond, not just for their province, but also for the benefit of their constituency, in order to be able to deal with some of these matters of concern.
The other issue that I think one would need to respond to is the issue of synergy between provincial departments of land affairs and agriculture. This is a matter which has been dealt with in the meeting of the MECs for Agriculture and Land Affairs. We are working towards an institutional framework which will ensure that there is alignment between these bodies.
I would also like to come back to the issue of state land. I think that for the past three weeks, if I am correct, I have heard so many figures being bandied around, 25 million, 35 million and 32 million, that I am now equally confused as to how much state land we have in South Africa. Perhaps we need to put the issue of state land into context without putting any figure forward or saying that this one is wrong and that one is right.
State land in South Africa is categorised in different ways. We have state land that is used for domestic purposes, where one has army bases, hospitals and schools. That is state land. It is not the type of land that one can use for redistribution. It is land that is being used by the state for the welfare of society. I am saying that when we look at available state land, we should be mindful of what we are talking about.
The other state land we are talking about is the land where we have the old SADT irrigation scheme - the Taung schemes, the Lisbon estate in the Northern Province, Magwatt in the Eastern Cape, Nyoka, Makatini flats and so on. Some of the land is the type of land where we have said, as Government, that through working with the provincial MECS, we will be disposing of it to people who will pass the criteria.
I am saying ``pass the criteria'' deliberately, because when we look at the disposal of this state land, we take into consideration, firstly, that some of the current people who have been lessees on that land are in serious debt to the state. When we deal with the disposal issue, we will take that into consideration. Secondly, we will also take into consideration the matter that has been raised by an hon member here where people had a lease with an option to buy. What was done in those areas such as Mpofu District in the Eastern Cape is that we have already publicised that land for ownership with the first option to buy by the current lessees. Those who will be able to purchase will purchase. That is one form of disposal. We are also recognising the fact that in areas of the North-West, around the Bala farms, which is getting our urgent attention at the moment, some of the current lessees may not be able to afford the prices. We are saying that for those people, we will extend the lease period in order to ensure that we do not put those people into debt right from the beginning. As part of our programme, as Government, we want to exit from farming. The third category of state land that we are referring to is land that is already occupied. Hon members will remember that, earlier in my speech, I indicated that Government remains the nominal trustee for some of these areas. This applies to a number of areas of tribal land such as the Ninga land and so on. Even though that land belongs to a tribe, in statutory terms, it is state land. So, in looking at issues of redistribution, one needs to be mindful when making statements about why state land is not being used for redistribution that the actual land available for redistribution is very minimal.
I was talking to the officials today and saying that we would come back to this House and the National Assembly to actually make an analysis of how much state land is occupied, the purpose for which it is occupied and how much is available for redistribution, so that we remove this cloud about why Government is not redistributing the 24 million hectares, because this 24 million does not exist.
The other issue that I wanted to refer to is the question which was raised by hon member Versveld around the issue of statutory rights in communal areas. We do have constitutionally enforceable rights in land for those communities. As a democratic government, in the past five years, we have enacted legislation which protects land rights in those areas. We have an Act known as the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, and through the Minister acting as the trustee, we have been able to ensure that economic development does take place even in those rural places.
Here again a case in point is the Mhinga Trust in the Northern Province where we were able to alienate the land for housing development for that tribe. They have also come back to us for the alienation of another piece of land for ecotourism in that area.
I am saying that it is not all doom and gloom, but that there are challenges all of us have to face. We, as the department, the forerunners, will do everything in our power to ensure that we respond to the challenges that this House has thrown at us and to the concerns that we need to deal with. We will rely on the support of this House in the way in which we interact with members as they raise the issues of their constituencies, while at the same time working with us to ensure that we improve the budgetary situation of Agriculture, both in the provinces and nationally.
I would like to thank the Deputy Minister for the way in which he dealt with the issue of how we need to manage our provincial and national resources in order to ensure that we are able to drive our transformation agenda. This is not an easy thing, because sometimes, as we sit here, we look mainly at the national budget, and forget that Agriculture is a concurrent function. A lot of implementation occurs at a provincial level. If we have to make a change, particularly for those of us who are here as provincial representatives, it is very important to see how we actually look at the way in which our provincial agricultural budgets are structured in order to deliver services.
Where does money go in our provincial agricultural budgets? We are all talking about the improvement of extension. Extension offices are not at national level, but at provincial level. That is where they have to work. We will do everything in order to give support, but I think the responsibility of ensuring that those advisory services are well and alive lies with the provincial government. These are the things that we would need to look at again, because I think the system of governance that we have allows for co-operation, but, at the same time, allocates particular responsibilities to different spheres of government. This is a responsibility that all of us have to share. [Applause.]