The Portfolio Committee’s Content Advisor provided a summary of the key financial and performance recommendations contained in the 2013/14 Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report, and described those that had been brought to the attention of the Minister of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), as well as to the Minister of Finance.

The Deputy Minister of Public Works continued to take Members through the comments made during the public hearings on the Expropriation Bill, indicating what comments had been made and whether the Department agreed with them or had other views. The Department had added to the Preamble to make it clear that section 34 of the Constitution provided that anyone had the right to approach the courts for resolution of a dispute. In relation to the definitions, there was discussion on whether the Bill should refer to both high courts and magistrates’ courts.

The Committee continued with the deliberation on the official list of proposed amendments to the Bill (A-list) accompanied by the B version of the Bill incorporating all the proposed amendments into the Bill. A UDM MP wanted to know how it was possible to make reference to sections 12 and 13 of the Expropriation Act of 1975 in clause 29(1)(b) while this law had been repealed in clause 31. It seemed superfluous to make reference to an Act that had been repealed.

The Bill incorporating the proposed amendments was not yet ready so the Deputy Minister discussed with the Committee some of the proposed changes to the Bill that had been agreed upon so far.

Members raised concerns about the variation in judgements in Magistrates Courts; the potential definition of expropriation; definition of property being not limited to land. Some MPs wanted to “subject to the payment of just and equitable compensation” and just add “according to the Constitution and the Act”.

The Department produced a Working Draft of the Bill that incorporated all the proposed amendments previously made by the Committee. The Deputy Minister indicated that the Department had introduced the definition of “disputing party” in clause 1, which indicated that the “ disputing party includes an owner, holder of an unregistered right, expropriated owner or expropriated holder that does not accept the amount of compensation offered in terms of clause 14(1)”.

The Committee considered the official list of proposed amendments to the Bill (the A-list) accompanied by the B version of the Bill incorporating all the proposed amendments into the Bill.

With the Minister of Public Works in attendance, the Deputy Minister gave a briefing on the Expropriation Bill (B4-2015). He said that expropriation is an essential mechanism for the state to acquire property in certain instances. Section 25 of the Constitution provides that property may be expropriated only in terms of general application and to that no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property. The Constitution states that expropriation may occur only for a public purpose or in the public interest and subject to payment of compensation.

The Committee continued deliberations on the official list of committee proposed amendments to the Bill (A-list) accompanied by the B version which incorporated all the proposed amendments into the Bill. Chapter 4 on Intention to Expropriate and Expropriation of Property was completed.

The South African Institute of Race Relations said the Bill made it difficult for the compensation amount to be decided by a court, and the Bill did not allow the courts to examine and rule on the validity of the expropriation. The Bill tried to limit how often people could go to court about the amount of compensation. The IRR argued that 60 days was not enough time for the claimant to institute legal proceedings for the determination of the compensation, this should be extended to 180 days. Compensation should include damages for additional losses.

The Deputy Minister of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR), addressed the Committee on the motivation for the amendments to the Extension of security of tenure (land) Amendment Bill, saying the fundamental resolve was to overcome decades of hardship in South Africa. Its redress was not about obsolete political stories, but about the creation of just opportunities.

How worried are people, especially in poorer communities, about the risk that they could lose their homes or their land? The idea behind this initial survey is simple: to find out if people are worried about their existing property rights or lack of them – whether women or men, owners or tenants, in cities or in villages. The survey results reveal that insecurity of property rights is widespread in India, with about one in four owners and about half of renters expressing worry about losing their home.

In recent years, the need to provide title to small units owned by individuals above and under the surface has been increasing. The need for more intensive development on available land, while ensuring security of tenure, has prompted various jurisdictions to search for solutions. Registration of small units is difficult in many jurisdictions due to planning regulations, which regulate minimum parcel sizes on the ground surface.