Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I welcome the hon. the Prime Minister back and say to him that we are delighted to see he has arrived back here in one piece.

Thank you. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister should have spent his time yesterday in Randburg, where he would have had …

I met the hon. member for Houghton’s twin sister yesterday.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Order! To what clause is the hon. member for Sandton speaking?

I am addressing myself to clause 16, Mr. Chairman. I should just like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister: Which lady did he like best? [Interjections.]

There was not much of a choice. [Interjections.]

The feeling is quite mutual. [Interjections.]

Sir, I should like to return now to the discussion of clause 16. When the original Act came before Parliament in 1977 there were a series of clauses—from clause 118 to clause 121—which caused some controversy in this House. The clauses I have just mentioned related to the fact that when a person was brought before a court that person could be required to plead immediately. The charge could be put to him, that person could plead immediately and a trial could be heard forthwith upon which the person tried could in fact be sentenced and dispatched to prison. We were concerned about this because it was felt at the time that accused people could not necessarily or always be in a proper position to defend themselves as best they could.

There are two sides to this in that over the years these stipulations have been executed, resulting in many cases, in people being kept in custody prior to their trial for shorter periods. Therefore, I believe, it is fair to say that there have been advantages in having stipulations of this nature in the Act. On the other hand, we did have a case a little while ago which illustrated our point. A man who was desperately upset because of his financial circumstances walked into a bank with a gun, held up the staff and was apprehended as he left the bank. He was taken straight to the court-house, where he pleaded guilty, was convicted and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. He found himself in prison before 5 o’clock that afternoon. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to use that merely as an example. I do not wish to criticize that particular case because that particular case was reviewed, I think, by Mr. Justice Didcott, and was indeed referred back to the magistrate’s court for further evidence. The sentence passed on the accused was subsequently allowed to stand. I therefore do not use that particular case as an example of any malfunctioning of the court. The feeling was, however—and Mr. Justice Didcott did in fact agree with this point—that not sufficient evidence had been heard in mitigation or in connection with the psychiatric or other circumstances of the accused.

That being the case, Mr. Chairman, our feeling in this matter is that the principle, whereas it has helped the courts in expediting trials, and has also kept down the prison population in a minor manner, can nevertheless lead to injustice. This particular clause extends the principle whereby a person can be asked to plead in connection with a matter which is going to the Supreme Court for trial. That person can be asked to plead in a magistrate’s court immediately, not only to the main charge but to any other supplementary and lesser charges. We feel that this is a broadening of the principle. We are not happy with it being proceeded with, and accordingly we are not going to lend the hon. the Minister support in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, as was proved yesterday evening, the hon. member for Sandton and some of his colleagues sometimes labour under their misconception of the law. That causes them unnecessarily to oppose measures and to waste the time of this House to such an extent that I think they really deserve a serious reprimand from the Chair. [Interjections.] Their attitude was exactly the same yesterday evening, Mr. Chairman. Therefore I feel I should just try to rub it in, as the hon. member for Sandton has just done it to me. It has really been very interesting observing …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Could the House be told, firstly, which clause we are debating, and secondly, whether the hon. the Minister is entitled to redebate a clause which has already been disposed of? Furthermore, is the hon. the Minister entitled to reflect on the Chair by saying that the hon. member should have been reprimanded by you, Mr. Chairman? If the hon. member should have been reprimanded, the suggestion is clearly that you did not perform your duty as Chairman, which, I submit, is a serious reflection on the Chair. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I believe a man who is so trained in justice and in the law as the hon. the Minister should really not cast a reflection of that nature on the Chair.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I should just like to …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to discuss again a clause we already discussed yesterday evening? If he is entitled to do so, Mr. Chairman, surely other hon. members might like to do the same. Can we then debate that clause again?

Order! The hon. the Minister was not discussing clause 1 in detail. He was merely referring to it in passing, and in relation to the clause which is under discussion now.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, it is a very long passing. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I hope I can proceed now. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I was referring to a style of the Opposition and I was making the point that as in the particular clause that we debated last night, in this regard as well the hon. member is labouring under a misconception. This was clearly illustrated in the debate we had last year when a similar amendment was moved and when the hon. member argued on the basis that accused persons could be brought before a court and be required to plead in circumstances disadvantageous to them. The hon. member now suggests that accused persons will be required to plead to their disadvantage. I have taken the trouble to look up what the law provides in relation to the rights of accused persons under the circumstances.

The very first reference in this regard to which I should like to draw attention is an analysis by Mr. Van der Merwe on the provisions that we are debating now together with other relevant provisions. Mr. Van der Merwe says here—

He then goes on to quote a reference. I should also like to quote a very recent decision in the matter of The State vs. Evans by Mr. Justice Viviers. I should just like to quote the synopsis of the court case. If the hon. member finds this boring it is no doubt because he concedes the point. If he is prepared to concede the point, I shall not argue it any further. However, for the sake of the record and for the sake of the picture that the hon. member is trying to paint, I should like to make the matter clear. In this particular case to which I am referring, 1981(4), Mr. Justice Viviers passed judgment as follows—

*As expressed in a Latin saying which the hon. member for Sandton will not understand—

This is found by the people on the Bench themselves. I have here an extract from the latest issue of the official journal of the magistrates entitled Die Landdros of January/ March 1983. In it they refer to the case of Evans and a magistrate who analysed this case, reached certain conclusions. This is what is offered as the official view of a magistrate which is presented to other magistrates. He says—

Mr. Chairman, I am just stating this point fully so that the hon. member will not come along and waste our time again if we discuss a similar amendment next year.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 24:

Mr. Chairman, in consultation with the hon. the Minister, as I mentioned during a previous debate on this Bill, I agreed to move an amendment which the hon. the Minister would like to have, and I have no objection to that. I now move the amendment which reads as follows—

When one looks at clause 11—it is the clause which sets up the office of the Attorney General within the jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand Local Division—one finds that if this provision is inserted in clause 24, the operative section can be brought into operation at a time when the infrastructure has been properly created. It is in the best interests of the administration of justice in that area that the office be set up. We have no objection to this—in fact, we support it—and we look forward to the hon. the Minister bringing it to implementation as soon as he possibly can.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to go on record that I consider this a very important contribution on the part of the hon. member for Sandton. It is no negligible contribution to the proper administration of justice. The very fact that he saw light in this particular instance really gives us hope for the future. I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned, I had covered a fair amount of ground in respect of the Bill and I had indicated that there were three major issues in relation to it. Firstly, the issue of what is represented in regard to a time-sharing scheme when people try to sell it; secondly, what is to be the substance of the agreement; and thirdly, what is to be the title which should be held by the person who acquires a time-sharing interest.

I indicated then that I intended to move an amendment and at this stage I move the following amendment—

In moving this amendment I want to make it quite clear that it is our intention that the Bill should be finalized during this session of Parliament, and if there is a Select Committee, we shall offer every co-operation to ensure that it will complete its work. We hope that the other two Opposition parties will do the same, because we regard it as important that the legislation should be placed on the Statute Book this session.

The reason why we move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee is that there are a number of amendments, some of which we have indicated. There is at least one amendment of substance which it would not be possible to move if there was not a Select Committee. If we want to change the provisions in regard to title, we may well be dealing with a principle of the Bill and therefore it may well be that the Chairman of Committees will rule such an amendment out of order. That is the sole reason why we move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. We seek to improve the measure and we seek to have a more effective Bill.

Having moved the amendment, I want to deal briefly, for just a few moments, with the remaining provisions of the Bill which I have not dealt with. Clause 8 deals with the relief that the court may grant in respect of contracts. One of the problems that exists here—and this same problem exists in regard to the Alienation of Land Act—is that there are four alternatives that are possible in the event of non-compliance with the Act, and neither the seller nor the purchaser knows which of those four are going to apply, and the fourth is one that is wide open and can virtually allow for any relief whatsoever to be granted, because in clause 8(l)(d) it is stated—

Here “it” is the court. Whereas that is a prayer to a summons included in legal proceedings to give an opening for alternative relief within the ambit of the relief for which one has pleaded, including this in the Statute means that one can virtually grant any relief one wants to under the circumstances. This presents a difficulty. Clause 8(l)(a) mentions reducing “the rate of interest payable to the seller”. To my mind that should only be applicable when the provisions of clause 4(l)(h) in regard to interest have not been complied with. It should not be applicable to any other provisions. Secondly, when it comes to the question of rectification, what we now have to ask is whether it is possible for an agreement, which does not comply with the provisions of the Act, to then be rectified so as to make it comply with the provisions of the Act, thus becoming binding. The difficulty is that none of the essentials which are set out in the Act as having to be included in the agreement are ones which are fundamental and would result in the agreement becoming void or one which can be rectified. So what we have done is to introduce a terrible element of vagueness in the sense that if one does not comply with one of the provisions of clause 4(1), one does not know whether the court is going to rectify this by saying the contract is still binding or whether the court is going to say that the contract is void. This kind of uncertainty, to my mind, should not be allowed. Rectification is also a common law remedy which one normally applies when there is a common mistake between the parties concerned. If, however, there is non-compliance with the Statute, rectification is not normally the appropriate remedy. One either says that that results in the agreement being void, or alternatively, it is the kind of breach that does not result in the agreement being void, but does result in other provisions applying.

I have already dealt with the broad question of the alternative relief which has introduced, as I have said, a degree of uncertainty into the legislation which is utterly undesirable.

This brings me to the provisions of clause 9. Here there is another problem I should like to draw attention to. Only expenditure intended to preserve the property may be recovered, but once improvements have been effected, if there is no consent, there can be no compensation. If a man acts reasonably, in the belief that he has a valid contract, and effects improvements, and if the fault lies with the seller who has not given him a valid contract—as is mostly the case—there is no reason why he should be penalized by not getting adequate compensation. I want to suggest that this does not seem to be a satisfactory provision.

The powers of exemption in clause 11 should, to my mind, only apply to existing agreements that are being conducted in a proper manner and should not be exercised in regard to future agreements which should fully comply with the Act in respect of which there should really be no exemptions.

As I have tried to indicate—and I would like to conclude on this note—the legislation is necessary, in fact highly desirable, because of the abuse that has been shown to exist in regard to this type of activity in many parts of the world. There is no question about that. What we have to do, however, is to make sure that the legislation actually protects the consumer and ensures that this type of activity is not used to exploit the ignorant, the uninformed and perhaps less sophisticated sections of the community. One of the dangers is that when people go on holiday and are basking in the sun they might, in thus enjoying themselves, be tempted to sign agreements which are full of small print which they do not understand. They might then find themselves with lots of leisure in which to repent in the future. It is our job to make sure that they do not find themselves in such a repentant situation, but are in fact protected in the sense of being able to get a valid agreement and proper title. It is up to us to ensure that they can enjoy something, which they are paying for, in a proper, valid and effective manner.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with very great interest to the hon. member for Yeoville and I must say he made a very careful study of the Bill. I also have no doubt that he is very sincere in trying to get a law adopted here which will ensure that there are no abuses in this field in future. I agree with him that this time-sharing concept is a concept which could easily be abused, and probably has been abused overseas and that for that reason we must make quite sure that we have as good a piece of legislation as possible.

*We are dealing here with the problem of communal property which is shared. Yesterday a latin phrase was quoted here, and I too, want to quote a latin phrase, a phrase which the hon. member for Yeoville will understand very well. It is: communio est mater rixarum, and it means: joint ownership is the mother of strife. This is precisely what happens in respect of time-sharing, and to a degree one encounters precisely the same problem with sectional titles. That is why it is so important that it be rectified by way of legislation.

Actually I have a practical problem with the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. My feeling is that “time is of essence in the contract” and that one should really have legislation in this regard as soon as possible. I can fully understand the arguments of the hon. member for Yeoville in this regard. I myself will later move an amendment which I have already cleared with the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, I still wonder whether one should not use the Committee Stage to try to rectify the problems we have.

It is too late.

No, it does not have to be too late. I shall now indicate why it does not have to be too late.

This is one of the most interesting pieces of legislation which has been on the Order Paper this year, because—and in his speech the hon. member for Yeoville also referred to this—this legislation introduces a new dimension of property ownership. The evolution on property ownership has passed through four phases. There is, firstly, the traditional title deed of land and improvements. Secondly, there is the sectional title deed with separate title deeds and a share in a common property. Then, a few years ago, there was the Share Blocks Control Act, in terms of which ownership of immovable property could be obtained through shares in a company. Now, today, we have this new piece of legislation which, as far as I am concerned, is quite an historic event in this Parliament, where a completely new form of ownership will now be introduced by way of legislation.

This can be done in various ways. The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to this. However, I just want to restate this, because it is only a week since we referred to it. Firstly, there is a deeds certificate on sectional titles. Secondly, there are share blocks in a company. I want to say at once to the hon. member for Yeoville that I agree that if it could be restricted to those two ways, it would perhaps be a very good thing. However, then there is still a third and a fourth method, namely by way of club membership and by way of long-term contracts of leases. I fully realize what the problems in connection with these two forms of temporary ownership will be. I also do not believe that it is right that at this point we should muzzle or completely ban this type of ownership by means of legislation. However, I do not doubt in the least that we shall have to see to it that in terms of clause 6, a purchaser should not have the slightest doubt about precisely what he buys and on what basis. I also think it is necessary that we understand that in fact, through this legislation, this fourth means of ownerhsip, a shift takes place from pure ownership to the use of a facility. This is basic to this legislation.

I think it will perhaps be a good thing just to take a quick look at the history of timesharing and how it originated throughout the world over the past 15 years. It had an interesting beginning in 1968 at a 5 000 bed skiing resort in the French Alps. Rich tourists went there every year, and to make sure that they had accommodation every year, they started thinking about the possibility of buying in advance. This is in reality how time-sharing originated. It spread rapidly throughout the world and today it is an industry with a turnover of billions of rands. For example, in France there are seventy of these resorts with 100 000 members. In England there are 40 with 20 000 members, and in America—this is interesting—there are 500 time-sharing projects at the moment in which 400 000 people are involved as owners of time-sharing units.

The sales figures in America is just as interesting. In 1975, time-sharing units valued at R25 million were sold, and for 1980 the figure is R800 million. It is expected that over the next ten years 32 000 American families will own time-sharing units with an average price of $8 000. It is expected that the total turnover will be $250 billion. This is, therefore, a new type of project for which new legislation is essential. It lends itself to abuse, and that is why it is imperative that in South Africa, too, legislation should come into effect as soon as possible.

There is another interesting side-project to this scheme. If, for example, one owns a time-sharing unit at Umhlanga rocks, but does not want to go and holiday there in a given year, one can exchange one’s unit for a flat in, say, Monaco.

What are the advantages for the buyer of a time-sharing share in such a scheme? I want to mention four benefits for the buyer of a time-sharing unit. Firstly, he insures himself against inflation. Furthermore, he has security in respect of his holiday accommodation. If he buys in the right way, it also gives him the right of ownership. I concede that. It also offers him capital growth, if he chooses correctly. For the seller it has the advantage that he can get back his asset in the form of cash so that he can invest in new assets.

I now come to the crux of the matter. In the nature of the matter, good and expert management of a time-sharing project is of the utmost importance.

†I have no doubt that management eventually is going to determine the success of any time sharing project.

What happens if management goes bankrupt?

That is, of course, a problem. This can happen in any field. Every business transaction in the world carries a risk. To a very large degree, it is going to depend on the buyer’s own initiative to see to it that he concludes a decent transaction. The management of such a property time-sharing scheme must, firstly, see to it that the buyer can enjoy a pleasant holiday, and, secondly—this much more important—see to it that the buyer’s investment is protected. In my view this is the most important task of management.

There are two management possibilities in respect of this matter, namely the hotel type management of which we have quite a few examples on the Natal coast, and the ordinary holiday flat management. Often the management offers a further benefit, namely that they offer a type of leasing pool facility if a buyer does not use his facility in a given year.

I want to advance another reason to the hon. member for Yeoville, who is not present at the moment, as to why I think that this legislation must be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible. We already have 55 time-sharing projects in South Africa today, 55 for a young country such as South Africa, where the time-sharing idea only took root a year or two ago. What is interesting is that we in South Africa hold a world record in this regard, namely a project in Natal with 276 flats. This, multiplied by 52 weeks, gives one a time-sharing unit consisting of 12 000 units, the biggest in the world. It is the duty and responsibility of this House to see to it that the many people in South Africa who are interested in buying, or who have already bought, will be protected by means of legislation in one way or another. The point is that this Bill, as we have it before us today, was published as a draft Bill as long ago as 9 July 1982. Sapoa, the South African Property Owners’ Association, is 100% satisfied with this Bill. Basically, this legislation covers the following: It covers time-sharing accommodation; it defines a time-sharing scheme as such and it gives us a description of what has to be included in the contract. I cannot emphasize the last point sufficiently. I have with me an example of a contract which is absolutely comprehensive and which I should very much like to offer as an example of what such time-sharing scheme contracts ought to look like. Fourthly, the Bill provides in clause 6 for the full disclosure of all information in advertisements, and to me this, too, is the crux of the whole matter, because a time-sharing project should be advertised with such fidelity that the buyer will know precisely what he is letting himself in for.

Fifthly, it limits the receipt of compensation by the seller until such time as the architect can prove and certify that the purchaser has received what he has paid for.

The last aspect provided for in the legislation is the promulgation of regulations by the hon. the Minister. This is a very important aspect as well. If problems should arise in due course, they can be rectified by way of regulation.

It is being said that the legislation should first be referred to a Select Committee. In this case the department had the benefit of having before it three Acts from which it was able to derive the best, namely the Alienation of Land Act, the Sectional Titles Act and the Share Blocks Control Act. The department was able to take the best from them and avoid the faults contained in them. Except for a few minor aspects, I support this legislation and would very much like it implemented as soon as possible.

Let me just briefly mention a few aspects I should like to have attended to in due course. Firstly, in the English text we talk about “property time-sharing”. This is also the title of the Bill. In the Afrikaans title the name “Eiendomstydsdeling” is used. I think we can get a better description for it, namely “Eiendomsdeeltyd”, because one talks about “deeltyd” and not about “tydsdeling”. “Deeltyd” is really a better description of what we are trying to do here. In fact, Sapoa would also very much like to see such a change.

A second aspect I should like to raise—and I shall move an amendment in this regard in the Committee Stage—deals with clause 6. Clause 6 is the clause controlling advertisements, which provides precisely what should appear in advertisements. Provision is made here for imprisonment of six months or a fine of R500 for a seller who misleads or fails to provide adequate information in an advertisement. I do not think this is adequate. I shall therefore move in the Committee Stage that the penalty be doubled to a fine of R1 000 and imprisonment of one year, respectively.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the five years which can elapse between the date on which a purchaser signs his contract and the day on which he takes possession. I agree with the hon. member that five years is too long, and I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider reducing the five years to three years.

The hon. member for Yeoville has certain serious reservations about this legislation. For example, he referred to the influence inflation can have on the management costs, and here I agree with him 100%. This is indeed a real problem. But it is also a real problem in respect of sectional titles, as well as for the man who owns his own house and whose rates and taxes, due to circumstances beyond his control, simply increase every year. The fact that a time-sharing owner obtains a property where he can have his vacation for the rest of his life, and his rates and management costs increase every year may ultimately mean that he is in fact only leasing that property, and then it is a problem. This just goes to show once again how important it is that there should be proper management.

The hon. member for Yeoville mentioned three main points. The first deals with advertisements. In this regard I agree with him. However, this is a matter we can rectify by way of an amendment. His second point dealt with the contract itself. In this regard I think that the legislation makes adequate provision for everything that must appear in a contract. His third problem was that of title, and the fact that one should perhaps be able to prohibit leases, etc. But I do not believe that we should restrict the rights of the individual in this way. We should tell him precisely what he is buying.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to warn prospective purchasers of time-sharing schemes that they should not allow themselves to be taken in by beautiful brochures. I have before me a brochure of a time-sharing scheme in Natal. On the front page there is a photo of a young man and a girl at one of these time-sharing schemes. The girl is supposed to be wearing a bikini, although one can hardly see it. Mr. Speaker, I left this brochure in my office especially because I was afraid that some hon. members would make the mistake which I am afraid members of the public will make by going in for such a scheme without stopping to think. Therefore, while I support the legislation 100%, I want to warn the public that they should be careful and must make sure precisely what they are letting themselves in for.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Paarl raised many interesting points. I think he made an exceptionally good speech, the speech of a person who speaks from knowledge. Apparently he has investigated the question of time-sharing thoroughly. He stated inter alia, that divided property was the mother of dispute. I am not very well acquainted with Latin, but I think my translation of the Latin maxim is correct. If this is the case, I just want to tell the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development that they should really be careful with power-sharing. It may lead to disputes. [Interjections.] But this was merely a bit of politicking, Sir.

Sir, this is an extremely important piece of legislation. I do not wish to deal with the legislation clause by clause. It was introduced by a Deputy Minister who had a thorough grounding in contract law. I believe that he is one of the people who examines a contract in his own special way. I also believe that in this respect he has done everything in his power, and shall do so in future as well, to afford the purchaser protection.

However, what is the situation in South Africa at present? Only 10% of the total population of South Africa can afford two houses. Actually, not more than 5% of the population can really afford them, although there are many more who do in fact buy two houses. A house along the Natal South Coast costs a person approximately R75 000 today. I am talking about a three-bed roomed house. [Interjections.] What happens then is that the interest on that house alone, if we calculate it at 10%, amounts to R7 500 annually. That is the cost of the purchaser’s holiday. The cost of his food and his servant for a period of 14 days might cost the purchaser a further R1 000 or more. Consequently his holiday costs him approximately R8 500. In addition, he has to work for two or three weeks on end to get the garden looking clean and tidy. Regularly, once every year, the purchaser of that house also has to do repairs to his house, while thieves may have broken in during his absence possibly and stolen things. He has to pay workmen to do repairs to his house. Therefore the maintenane of the house costs him approximately 2,5% of the purchase price. This means a further R1 800 or R2 000, which brings the total annual cost up to R10 000. This is, in the end, what the purchaser’s annual holiday of between two and three weeks costs him.

What happens in the case of a person who does not buy a holiday home; someone who decides to spend his holiday in an hotel? During the three in-season months it will cost a family of five—the average number of members of a South African family—approximately R50 per day to stay in an hotel in Durban. That is what they will pay for bed and breakfast. Then breakfast is not always included in the price.

Perhaps.

Perhaps, yes. The hon. member for Umhlanga is quite right. This means that for every member of the family an additional amount has to be paid for three meals every day. Entertainment costs a whole lot extra. In most hotel rooms there is no television and other amusements which one might have elsewhere. Consequently, without owning or purchasing any property, the cost of such a family’s holiday is also in the region of R7 000. This is for a holiday of three weeks.

What does time-sharing actually consist of? Of course, I am completely opposed to time-sharing being allowed in a block of flats consisting of 100 or 200 dwelling units, because a homely atmosphere and the congenial relationship between the people using that building is in fact absent. A strong bond of unity between those people is never really built up. However, let us take as an example a block of flats with five dwelling units. One of those units, a three-bedroomed flat, beautifully furnished, with television set, and even a dishwasher, as well as floor tiles to save labour, may be bought for R2 000. The purchaser then has that unit at his disposal for life, on condition that he does not go on holiday there during April, July or December. This, of course, enables the person who has already retired, as well as young newlyweds, people who do not have any children yet, to go on holiday for between 14 days up to as long as they wish, just as it suits them. If they cannot use those holiday facilities themselves, they can always sublet them. It therefore becomes the property of the purchaser.

As I have already said, I am leaving this legislation in the hands of the legal experts. I am not one, and for that reason I do not want to move any amendments. I believe that the legal experts, hon. members like the hon. member for Yeoville and others, are fully capable of doing so. They can deal with the legal aspects of the legislation. I am discussing the economic aspects to see what we can do to give a person an opportunity to enjoy his holiday, a holiday that he can afford.

What is the position in December? To rent a flat in Margate in December is indeed expensive. Before you know it, you have spent at least R1 000. These days one also has to pay per person. If a person buys himself a week in August instead, it will cost him at least R2 000. This is the cost of a fully equipped three-bedroomed flat, and then there is also the commission that has to be paid. Of course the owner of such a place has time to pay off that money, but the hon. member for Yeoville was quite right when he said that we should try to ensure that no one is prejudiced through signing such a contract. I would have no objection if the Government were to intimate that it will refer this legislation to a Select Committee, because all of us will then have an opportunity to debate the legislation in full. However, I do not think that that is necessary. If a person is afraid that a polecat is going to catch one of his chickens one day, then he does not smash all the eggs before they have hatched, just in case he might lose one. One should inform the public of the opportunities presented by time-sharing. One should offer the public the possibility of investigating this matter, but surely we cannot make a law in order to protect every single person. People must protect themselves, too. We in South Africa must learn that if we have not had the training, we must approach a lawyer to draw up a contract which will ensure that our rights are protected.

I visited beautiful estates in England where a time-sharing system had been applied to the old manor houses. One can buy time-sharing there for R5 000. This is also contained in legislation. One can spend a holiday there once or twice a year and one need only provide for one’s travel expenses there and back. Owing to the rising cost of living in South Africa we shall, in two years’ time, not be able to afford to spend a holiday with our family in an hotel. The ordinary man in the street will never be able to afford it. But this system of time-sharing offers these people an opportunity to buy themselves a share in the future now.

You sound like a salesman.

I am. [Interjections.] I am selling something to the public of South Africa, but at the same time I want to tell them that in regard to anything that one buys one must be careful.

What is the name of your scheme, Barney?

You see, Sir, as soon as one makes out a good case, some hon. members think you are doing it to profit yourself.

The fact of the matter is that the hon. the Deputy Minister was chairman of three or four committees. He also served on Select Committees. Consequently he acquired experience. I know that he researched the legislation concerned. My personal opinion is that he is too strict, but I believe that in the way he is dealing with this legislation, he is benefitting South Africa. However, in regard to the man who is able to buy something today for the future at current prices…

But the current price is perhaps three times the normal price.

I do not want the hon. member for Hillbrow—no, I beg your pardon, I mean the hon. member for Yeoville, but he and I have known each other since our Hillbrow days—to intervene now.

The problem is that we in South Africa have the habit of making people afraid of everything. No, we should not make them afraid.

The people should not be talked into a state of despondency either.

People should be taught to read the Act. One must make certain that your contract is correct. Every person should see to it that he is being treated fairly. I do not believe in the super powers of a salesman. I do not believe in the so called fine print story that someone did not know, because he could have called upon the services of an attorney. Frequently we are conjuring up spectres in regard to things which do not exist.

The hon. member for Paarl succeeded very well indeed in pointing out that even before 1968, time-sharing had been accepted in many parts of the world. In earlier years the sectional title system was condemned in this House, but today one finds that it is virtually the only method by means of which one can acquire property. One is no longer able to afford an ordinary house. It is almost only under sectional titles that the ordinary person is able to buy property today.

The hon. member pointed out that the possibility exists of exchange schemes throughout the entire world. If, for example, one has bought time-sharing for August in Margate or Southbroom or one of those places at, say, R2 000 per week, one can exchange it for time-sharing in Malaga. One could even go so far afield as the French Riviera, and you will find that it does not cost you a single extra cent; one merely joins certain groups and one builds up a community in those five, six or ten flats.

I would urge people in South Africa not to buy time-sharing in blocks consisting of 200 or 300 flats. The administration of such a block is too difficult. When it comes to five, nine or ten flats, however, one is dealing with a situation which can be handled, a homely situation. It is easy to handle something like that; it does not cause one major problems.

After having scrutinized the legislation and discovered what advantages are attached to this scheme for the average South African, we support it 10%. We say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we know he will deal with the legislation in such a way that no one will suffer.

Mr. Speaker, in trying to assess the legislation, I consider it very important to note that we are not dealing here with a new creation of the Government. Nor is this a new principle being introduced into the existing system of property utilization in South Africa. The Government is merely taking cognizance of an already established practice. This Bill is aimed at regulating this practice in the interests of the consumer—a practice which has arisen due to economic factors and changed ways of life. It was not so long ago—in fact it was in the ’twenties—that people had only two options when they sought residential accommodation. One option was exclusive ownership of a piece of land in a conventional urban area, with a conventional house standing on it—in other words, ownership. The other was to rent a house, a flat or a room in an apartment block or hotel. There were therefore two options; either exclusive ownership or renting.

However, it is a fact that exclusive ownership of a house is beyond the financial means of many people nowadays. Because we are discussing a piece of legislation which in fact concerns the regulation of holiday accommodation, it is also necessary to say that for most people, exclusive ownership of a holiday home is a luxury, a dream that will never come true. It is a fact that exclusive ownership is becoming increasingly difficult as the population becomes larger and to the extent that the inflation rate rises or persists at a high level. People are simply being compelled by circumstances to seek more economical housing. In the ’twenties it became the custom to link residential rights to ownership of shares in a company owning a building. In this case the buyer did not become the owner of the residential unit to which he was entitled. His right was a personal right of occupation. He did not acquire a real right.

Since the previous decade, the decade of the ’seventies, full ownership of sections of a building has also become possible in terms of the Sectional Titles Act. Share block schemes and sectional title schemes, to which I have just referred, were therefore aimed at the economic utilization of available space. Here we are concerned with the concept of space economy. The next logical step was in the direction of time economy or ownership in terms of time segments. Property time-sharing is a combination of space economy and time economy. One can say it is ownership in time segments for segmented parts of the space of a building. In this sense, property time-sharing is therefore absolutely optimum utilization of a really scarce commodity, if I may call it that. This aspect is also a really positive element in the concept which we are discussing today. It is maximum utilization of time and space.

However, there are other positive aspects too. In an excellent and constructive speech the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned the inflationary effect which this system could have, in the sense that it could boost the prices of blocks of flats. This may be so, but on the other hand it could also serve as a buffer against inflation for the investor. One need only take a look at how the prices of hotel accommodation and other holiday housing are constantly rising to understand this. It is true that this system is a buffer against inflation, in spite of the fact that levies for maintenance and for services in terms of time-sharing schemes will undoubtedly also have to rise. The hon. member for Yeoville emphasized this point; one could almost say he over-emphasized it.

In consequence of what I have just said, a further positive aspect of the system is that it enables the family man to make an investment which will assure him and his family of a holiday for a considerable period of time in the future.

Another positive aspect lies in the field of conservation. With time-sharing we shall be able to utilize valuable and ecologically sensitive coastal areas far better than is the case at present. We simply cannot continue, as we have done in the past, developing our coastal areas on a large scale by dividing them into wide streets and large plots, each containing a single house which is only lived in for three or four weeks in a year. We are destroying our natural assets in this way. Far more people are able to enjoy a specific piece of land and a specific piece of natural beauty while occupying a far smaller area under a time-sharing scheme. In this case it is of course true that it is necessary for the accommodation to be well-planned and to fit in aesthetically with the environment. This applies in any case to all buildings in ecologically sensitive areas.

The fact that I am trying to emphasize the positive aspects of time-sharing does not necessarily mean that I personally am unreservedly in favour of the system. As the hon. members for Yeoville and Paarl rightly pointed out, there are too many dangers and negative factors inherent in this system. From a technical legal point of view, too, I consider this to be a system which is inherently largely unsatisfactory. However, we are dealing here with an existing practice which arose as a result of the realities and the demands of the times in which we live. It is a blessing to many people. To many people it is a system which meets their requirements fully. That is why it is necessary for us to accept the realities and to regulate the practice in such a way that it affords the consumer the greatest degree of protection that could reasonably be expected.

This measure is aimed at enabling a reasonable person to secure his interests. No measure can protect a careless investor against his own imprudence. One cannot state in legislation that a prospective investor must obtain the advice of experts or that he should not sign documents before he has consulted his attorney. Nor does one prescribe in legislation that a person has to work out for himself whether he will be able to meet his future financial obligations. This is something he must do for himself. It is nevertheless a good thing that in this debate we draw attention to and emphasize the fact that the public should approach and utilize this system with great caution and with good judgment. In this regard the hon. member for Yeoville and I are in agreement.

However, I am not so sure that I entirely agree with him that it is necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. In the first place, as the hon. member for Paarl pointed out, it is true that we are dealing here with an urgent measure, a measure which is urgently needed to regulate the present system. In its present form, there are various instruments, methods and channels which may be used in this system. Moreover I am not quite sure that it is necessary to limit these methods. I do not believe it is necessary to interfere drastically with the existing structure. The choice of means or method should, in my opinion, be left to those involved. Attempts at excessive control seldom succeed. Nor is it the method which causes the problem in practice. It is the misuse and abuse of the system itself which does this. This measure now provides an opportunity to eliminate these misuses and abuses. I think this is all that is necessary and for that reason I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Stellenbosch has presented a very balanced assessment of the various aspects and consequences of the public investing in time-sharing projects. He has presented the positive aspects, as did the hon. member for Langlaagte. The hon. member for Stellenbosch said that one of the big advantages of such a project is that there is an optimum utilization of time and space as regards holiday accommodation, which, let us face it, is in very short supply in South Africa today. In fact, any accommodation is in very short supply in South Africa, today. The concept of time-sharing certainly to a large degree ensures optimum utilization of both the duration of occupation and the occupation of the total space of the project. He also said that it was a buffer against inflation. That is to say, as the hon. member for Langlaagte has indicated, that if a person invests in a time-sharing project today he makes a single investment and that this investment will carry him through to the future. Exactly how far is open to question. I will deal with that later. Certainly, for the immediate future he does have some buffer against inflation. As such this does result in an economic use of bricks and mortar as far as holiday accommodation is concerned. One has to accept, as hon. members have indicated, that the reality of the situation we find ourselves in today is that time-sharing projects are off the ground in South Africa and, as has been very clearly indicated, are starting to snowball. As far as the rate of growth of this particular industry is concerned, we are today probably amongst the world leaders.

My party is very concerned about those people who may not be fully aware of the implications of entering into a time-sharing agreement. There are always the foolhardies and it has been said that you cannot protect a fool from the consequences of his folly. This is true, although we in this House often in passing legislation certainly try to make as many of the contracts which the average person enters into, as foolproof as possible. I was rather surprised to read in the paper the other day that even when it comes to shareblock schemes there are many people in, for instance, Durban who have invested on the beach front in share-block schemes presuming that the company in which they had bought a share had title to the land, only to find later, just recently, that the land actually belongs to the city council of Durban and that the company in which they bought a share actually has a lease for a certain period over that land.

That is why there is no sectional title.

There is no sectional title, but one can have share-block schemes where the company does in fact have free-hold title to the land. The point which I am making is that there were people in Durban, very responsible people of whom some have spent tens of thousands of rand for their flats, who have suddenly woken up to the fact that they actually have a share in a company which holds a lease over the land and which does not have free-hold title to the land.

It is limited to a certain period.

Be that as it may, it was a lease and they were not aware of it. This is the point I want to make. In other words, they did not read the fine print carefully. Therefore there are certain dangers which the public are exposing themselves to when they enter into such agreements. If we do anything in this debate I sincerely hope it will be that we make the public aware of the need to examine the contracts which they enter into, preferably with the assistance of a qualified attorney to ensure that they do not get themselves locked into something which they may regret in the future. The first thing that we have to impress upon the people is the danger of entering into a contract when they are not fully aware of the exact title which they have. Buyers in a share-block freehold title time-sharing scheme at least have a share in the company which has freehold title to the land. In that sense I think there is a certain degree of protection. I think it is a pity in a way that all these timesharing schemes were not tied to such shareblock schemes where at least there is a greater degree of ownership than there would be under the other schemes, which are basically those of a lease agreement. It is for a certain period. I wonder how many people are aware of it.

Or sectional title.

Yes, or sectional title which give even greater protection. We have advertisements on TV today advertising time-sharing schemes in which it is said that a person has title in perpetuity, which may be true for that particular scheme. As a result people may believe that all time-sharing schemes give them title, a perpetuity but this is not so, as there are certainly other schemes that offer occupation for only a limited period and where the people do not really have any long-term title to the land or building.

Sir, I believe a great danger in these schemes lies in the matter of the levy and the degree of efficiency of the management, a matter which has already been discussed here. It is of concern to us that people may buy themselves into a time-sharing scheme and later find themselves in difficulty, especially with today’s rate of inflation and especially if they get into a scheme where some of the other leaseholders are perhaps not as careful with their property as they might be and that the management finds that because of the costs the levy has to be increased. Once a person is locked into such a scheme he is going to have to pay the levy. In the future people may find themselves very hard put to meet the levy. Again, if something of a disaster should happen to the scheme—as has now been found in Durban with regard to the type of materials used in the plumbing in certain projects, where suddenly the quality of the material has been proved to be faulty—people will have to foot the bill. There are people who have just recently bought into sectional title schemes and who have found that the entire plumbing of a building has to be renewed at tremendous cost and they are now having to foot the Bill. Therefore there are these dangers of entering into such an agreement. I certainly hope that the media will give publicity to this debate so as to create in the minds of people an awareness of the dangers involved in entering time-sharing schemes. It is for this very reason that the hon. the Deputy Minister has brought this Bill before the House. It is in order to try to draw up certain ground rules so as to give a measure of protection to the public. Therefore we welcome this measure and we shall be supporting it. We support it for the very reasons that the hon. member for Paarl and other hon. members have given, i.e. because of the rate of growth of this industry in South Africa and because of the urgency to bring in a set of ground rules to regulate these schemes. So we shall support the Bill.

We have listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Yeoville has had to say. At one stage we thought that perhaps we should support his call for a Select Committee, but in view of what has been said since and in view of the urgency, we believe that we should pass this legislation as fast as possible and that the Committee Stage should be used, as hon. members have said, to propose amendments that will improve the Bill, the main object being the protection of the public.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. It is sometimes said here that when hon. members begin to agree it may take hours and a long debate before they realize it. I do not want to be guilty of this, but I do want to say briefly why I agree to a great extent with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and other speakers. In the first place, I should like to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for Langlaagte for the felicitations they conveyed to attorneys here today. It is seldom that one hears this, and exceptional to hear it twice in one day.

I believe this legislation is a typical example of how national customs and circumstances of life undergo certain changes and how altered practices develop within life’s spectrum, practices which initially like each cell of development, start out as a Utopia, but soon begin to degenerate as a result of human weakness. This means that when new customs and living patterns develop in communities, legislation is soon needed in an effort to combat the malpractices and the dangers which have arisen out of them. That is why this legislation has become necessary in this country, to place this matter on a sound basis, because one frequently comes across unscrupulous opportunists who exploit the ignorance of the public.

One of the most important clauses in this legislation is clause 12, and we already have the undertaking of the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is going to act very strictly in accordance with this clause in order to protect the public. The extent to which the public will be protected, will depend on the strictness with which the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to act. I therefore express the hope that this provision will be applied in the strictest possible way.

All hon. members who have participated in the discussion thus far have admitted that this legislation is not perfect. I do not think that this will be the last word on this legislation. I should say that many amendments will have to be made to it before it will cover all circumstances. I agree with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that circumstances compel us to place this legislation on the Statute Book as soon as possible in order to protect the public and prevent the prevailing unfortunate circumstances, circumstances which do exist from continuing. Unfortunately we cannot always eliminate wrongs which have already been committed. We may grant forgiveness, but we cannot eliminate all wrongs which have been committed. I agree with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that the sooner we place this legislation on the Statute Book, the sooner the situation will improve. Whether or not we like this type of legislation, whether or not we think it is good, whether or not there are inherent dangers in it, the fact remains that the legislation is necessary and that it improves the existing situation. It can only improve the existing situation.

For that reason I fully support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, nobody on this side of the House denies that there is a need for legislation to control this new development which is now engulfing South Africans in the form of title-sharing projects. What we have before us is a Bill which endeavours to place on the Statute Book protection where it did not exist before. To that extent it was a good idea to bring this legislation forward. But, Sir, if we are going to legislate to protect people in an area where there was no legislation before, then surely it is incumbent upon us to provide proper and adequate legislation, legislation that will meet the case. Now, I submit that we have before us a Bill that does not meet the need. The Bill is inadequate and has a fatal flaw. All we are doing here is to introduce legislation to provide that a person who buys accommodation for one week or so a year for holidays or other purposes, will get an agreement, and that agreement is a contractual agreement between two people. The terms of that agreement are set out in clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 states what that agreement should contain. Well, I have no quarrel that there should be an agreement, neither do I have any quarrel with what it should contain. But this agreement is purely a contractual obligation between two people. The hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that if one analyses the situation one cannot say that you are buying a share in a building which gives you a real right, a real right in law, in so far as possession of that accommodation is concerned. What one gets is an agreement which, stripped of all the fancy titles which surround it, is nothing more than a lease of that accommodation for one week in perpetuity. Now, that agreement or lease is subject to common law rights. For instance, if one of the parties should die, that ends the agreement. There is no permanency of title. On the other hand, if you buy something you have to have title to protect you in perpetuity, a title which one can register with a deeds registry, like a sectional title deed, or a share one owns in a company controlling a shareblock. Or else one can have a lease, which could be a long lease, longer than 10 years and registered against the title deed. Even this would be better than a contractual agreement in terms of clause 4.

The hon. member for Paarl referred to club membership. Well, maybe it is a good idea although we do not know much about it. That is why we submit that this legislation should be examined by a Select Committee Sir, we find that brochures are distributed right throughout a country making it very attractive for people to buy. I have a beautiful glossy brochure here advertising a block of flats in Durban. They say here it is centrally situated and are fully air-conditioned. It also says that it is going to be linked with international agreements so that one can exchange one’s accommodation with people elsewhere in the world. But there is no guarantee that this will come about. Flats are advertised here for purchase at anything up to R11 000. I have also taken note that the Society of Accountants has held a seminar about this and that attention has been drawn to many of the pitfalls of this scheme. So these pitfalls have to be examined as well.

As I have indicated already, this Bill has certain inadequacies. For example, let us take the question of advertising. This is going to be controlled in a certain way, but there is nothing to stop advertising taking place prior to the certificate being issued by the architects. Another fatal flaw in this is that there is no adequate provision for proper management. If the management of the organization collapses, then there is no guarantee that one will get occupation of your accommodation because there is going to be no one there to control it. The people occupying the accommodation previously may not have moved out. There is no guarantee under this legislation for proper management, and the whole essence of the success of this depends upon how well it is managed.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee of occupation, in that no one who is taking part in this scheme is ever sure that he will be able to occupy a unit on a specific date. Then there is also no guarantee that the contents of any such unit will be properly protected. We must not forget that every purchaser into the scheme has to share a unit with 51 other people over the 52 calendar weeks of the year. What the condition of the contents of any unit will be like by the time dozens of successive shareholders will have occupied it, is anybody’s guess. We must also remember that if there is no proper administration there is also no proper control of any such scheme.

There is also no guarantee that the bond or mortgage commitments of the property owners will be paid. If they are not paid, the whole property will of course be sold in execution. If that should happen the money any shareholder has paid will be lost because this is something which happens after a shareholder has taken occupation of a unit. The only time a shareholder will really be protected will be if he makes his payment before the certificate is granted. Only then can his money be refunded. There is also no guarantee that the people who are going to share will have any representation in the board of directors, such as they indeed have, for example, in schemes under the Sectional Titles Act or the Share Block Control Act. Under those Acts they do have some say in the management of the units they occupy. In terms of this legislation now before the House they will have no such say in the management unless it is of course a share block company running the scheme. It is of course not necessarily going to be a share block company because this is not required in terms of any legislation. If all schemes of this nature were by law required to be run as share block schemes, we would of course not have this difficulty. There is also no proper guarantee that rates and taxes in respect of such properties will be properly paid. Because shareholders will not be represented on the board of directors they will also not be able to exercise any control on levies imposed upon them in addition to the purchase price. They will therefore never be sure that such levies, imposed from time to time, will indeed be fair and reasonable, and that somebody is not pocketing it, or that moneys which should, for instance, be paid into trust accounts, are properly administered and not being abused.

What are we looking for now? Are we looking for a second Glen Anil? The hon. the Deputy Minister is a man of experience. He should know. He was a member of the commission which drafted the share block control legislation and which also amended the Sectional Titles Act. That commission also amended the legislation in respect of the alienation of land. What for? It was to protect people from their own folly. The hon. member for Langlaagte contends that people cannot always be protected from their own folly, and that they should sometimes be assisted by a lawyer. A lawyer, however, can only assist people within the limits of the law. He cannot assist them beyond the limits of the law.

I have looked through some of these agreements, and I can promise the House that I would never advise anyone to buy into a time-sharing scheme. I have looked through these agreements and found them all to be lengthy and cumbersome. They cover everything except the essentials, to which I have just referred. As I have already said, it is an ordinary type of agreement, and there is nothing in it which is in fact disguised. There is indeed protection in that the necessary certificate has to be issued by an engineer. In this instance, however, the local authority has no say in the matter, something which is of course not in keeping with what is stipulated in section 4 of the Sectional Titles Act. The local authority can therefore not determine whether such a scheme is in accordance with its townplanning scheme, or even suggest any alteration to it. The local authority can also not take any decisions in connection with the provision of services, such as sanitation, the removal of refuse, etc. Surely, the particular local authority should be allowed a say in matters of this nature.

A shareholder’s only protection against the possible insolvency of the property owner is valid only if such insolvency occurs before the issue of a certificate. If the holding company is liquidated or the owner is declared insolvent after the issue of the certificate the shareholder in the scheme loses all the money he has paid.

Mr. Speaker, I have already shown this brochure to hon. members in the House. I should submit that people should not merely believe that time-sharing projects will all be run by very large public companies, companies that can manage such schemes, that can handle the administration in a proper fashion, etc. We are actually opening the door now to hundreds and thousands of private individuals, owners of small maisonettes, for example, or even flatlets and duplex units, to enter into a time-sharing scheme. There will be nothing that will prevent them from doing it. Many of them will possibly be fly-by nights. Moreover, such properties might be allowed to deteriorate, causing people to pay money for nothing. People will not be getting the accommodation they are paying for, and many property owners entering into such schemes will be sued or will simply disappear. Is that what we really want, Mr. Speaker? I am sure that is not what we want.

This is a brand new piece of legislation. It took years for our legislation on sectional title to be placed on the Statute Book. The member for Parktown in this House at the time—this was long before my time—introduced a private member’s Bill in this House each year for many years containing sectional title provisions which he had obtained from overseas in order to try to get the same legislation on our Statute Book. However, it was only in 1971 that that Act was passed but not before the legislation had been referred to a Select Committee which also discussed it thoroughly.

Sonny Emdin.

The hon. member for Langlaagte is correct. He probably also knows that the share block legislation was also not born overnight. It was born from evidence given by many people who had interests on both sides such as lawyers, law societies and accountants; in fact, everyone who felt he had an interest in the matter. From that evidence the legislation was born. Surely, if we wish to pass new legislation such as that we are discussing now, we should do the same. We cannot simply pop up with a piece of legislation dealing with time-sharing when we have set precedent in regard to the share block legislation and the sectional title legislation in regard to which Select Committees and commissions of inquiry were appointed. This legislation before us which we are being asked to approve has a fatal flaw in it. I consider that it is absolutely essential that there should be a share block scheme but somebody may have a better idea. If a Select Committee were appointed, it could hear those ideas. Maybe club membership is a better idea, maybe a long lease is a better idea, maybe we can find some way of obtaining registered title for the time-sharers.

There is a further point I wish to raise. If land is purchased and more than two instalments are payable over a period of a year, that land falls under the definition in the Alienation of Land Act. I should like to put this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. If an agreement which bears the conditions set out in clause 4 is entered into, and it is not a share-block company, would that not fall under the definition in the Alienation of Land Act? Is it the intention that such contract would fall under that definition? If so, these deeds of sale would have to be registered in a deeds registry. If such a contract does not fall under that definition, then I think we shall have to give consideration to having an alternative scheme because this point I raise will not be met by some of the suggestions that have been made by hon. members here today. Maybe we should consider having the agreement referred to in clause 4 registered in a deeds registry and, if it is to be so registered because it falls under the definition of the Alienation of Land Act, then we shall obviously have to consult the Registrar of Deeds to ensure that the various deeds registries in the country are able to cope with this work and the regulations that will flow from it.

The hon. member for Paarl raised a number of points to which I should like to refer. He said, for example, that time was of the essence. We could not agree with him more. These places are being sold all the time. We should like to give this matter our full co-operation. If the hon. the Deputy Minister and this House agree to refer this matter to a Select Committee so that it can consider all these propositions, we will give our support to making this legislation as waterproof as possible. We have already been told by the hon. the Prime Minister that we may have to sit here well into July, so we have plenty of time. The Select Committee can do its work and then we can come back to Parliament with a Bill which can be considered in good time.

The hon. member for Paarl also mentioned sectional title, the share block system and club membership, and I believe that these are all aspects to which we should give consideration. He mentioned the risk of insolvency with which I have already dealt. One other point raised by the hon. member that I should like to mention was that he said that this Bill had been published for information in July and that representations in this regard had been made by Sapoa. Perhaps I am prejudiced in so far as Sapoa is concerned. I do not hold any brief for them. When one reads the memoranda presented over the years to the Fouché Commission and the memoranda submitted by Sapoa to the Commission of Inquiry on the Alienation of Land, one finds that their representations are solely in the interests of the owners because they are the South African Property Owners’ Association. I do not blame them for it. I have nothing against them. They are there to represent the view of the owners. However, who is there to represent the buyers? Who is there to represent the tenants?

But we have the Association of Law Societies’ recommendation as well.

I therefore suggest that it is no good the hon. member for Paarl coming with Sapoa. I concede that Sapoa has a particular point of view and we do take notice of it, but obviously they are going to enjoy the benefits. They are going to support it because this is what they want. It is in the interest of property developers to have this done as soon as possible. On the other hand they are not going to be too concerned. If one looks at the agreements which are drawn up, one finds that they are almost leonine agreements. One finds that they are always in favour of the owner. One has to battle like anything in order to get conditions into the agreement that will constitute a measure of protection for the buyer, I therefore do not think that holds a lot of water.

The hon. member made an important point in respect of the regulations which will be promulgated in terms of clause 12. The hon. member for Vasco also referred to this important issue. When the Commission of Inquiry into the Alienation of Land Bill sat, we discussed the sort of regulation that should be embodied in the Act. We went into detail on what the regulations should provide. The regulations will be kernel to the Act itself. That is one of the very cogent reasons why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. If that is done, we shall be able to discuss the regulations.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch believes that the legislation is adequate. With great respect I say so him that it is not adequate by any means. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti supports the Bill holus-bolus. It is his right to do so. He says there has been snowballing, and that is true. He concedes that there have been dangers, but I did not hear him offer any protection for the people who are subject to those dangers.

All and all I say it is no good presenting a Bill to holiday makers who are going to enjoy things now and repent later. I believe the correct procedure is for us to refer the matter to a Select Committee, and I believe the time to do so is before the Second Reading so that we can go into all these aspects and come back to the House as speedily as possible. We shall give our full co-operation in order to do so that we can present a proper and adequate Bill which has no loopholes in it and which will provide adequate and permanent protection in perpetuity in the sense that people will have a real right in law.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. In a certain sense the hon. member contrasts the hon. member for Yeoville, because the hon. member for Hillbrow says that we have plenty of time to come back to the House after a Select Committee has gone into the Bill. He maintains that even the regulations which will have to be drafted can be considered by the Select Committee. The major problem, as has been pointed out by various hon. members, is that time is of the essence, because the Bill is needed in practice and it must become law as soon as possible. I shall in my reply to other hon. members also deal with the various points raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

I should like to thank all hon. members who made contributions. I thank them for their support in bringing this legislation about.

*The hon. member for Yeoville discussed this legislation in detail as long ago as 18 April. In his speech the hon. member touched upon various aspects which are of real importance. Other hon. members also touched upon such important points. The question of a Select Committee prior to the Second Reading was given very careful and serious consideration. The premise is to bring about the best possible legislation at this stage, but in addition the practice which has already developed must also be borne in mind. In this way the hon. member for Paarl, inter alia, correctly pointed out the magnitude which these schemes and activities were already assuming. In particular I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that the request which he made to me and which unfortunately I could not accept, was not superficially considered by me. In his speech the hon. member touched on various aspects to which I wish to refer briefly. In his reply I shall also deal with aspects to which other hon. members referred.

Firstly the hon. member referred in particular to clause 6, relating to the contents of advertisements. The request that provision should also be made for a prohibition on certain allegations appears to us to be unnecessary in view of the provisions of section 9 of the Trade Practices Act which provides that no person may publish an advertisement which in material respects is false or misleading. In addition there are in any event common law remedies for a purchaser in those cases where he has suffered losses as a result of a misleading advertisement.

†This brings me to the comment that the hon. member for Yeoville’s concern about the fact that a person who has no real right in respect of a particular property can sell a time-sharing interest, as in the case of a lease, is well-founded, but the practicability of the implementation of the concept of time-sharing dictates that various options do exist in terms of which a purchaser should be able to acquire such time-sharing interests. In this regard I should also like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Hillbrow, as well as the remarks made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. A purchaser only acquires a real right when purchasing such interest by way of a sectional-title scheme or by way of a registered long lease, and the Bill therefore also endeavours to protect the interests of a purchaser who does not acquire a real right, e.g. when he purchases in terms of a share-block scheme. The hon. member for Yeoville’s contention that a time-sharing interest should only be conveyed in terms of share-block schemes—as the hon. member for Hillbrow also suggested—and that a use agreement adequately protects a purchaser, in terms of such a scheme, is to my mind incorrect, as purchasers’ rights are derived from the terms of the contract, which need not be any stronger than those of a lessee when the relevant lease conveys a time-sharing interest. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also specifically referred to certain examples in this field.

*The fact that a property time-sharing scheme is operated by way of a lease does not mean that such a scheme is of necessity inherently weak. The entire matter concerning the question on which legal grounds property time-sharing schemes may be operated, was discussed fully and comprehensively throughout with all interested parties, with full consideration being given to the reasonable interests of the purchaser.

In connection with the draft legislation which was published last year in July, submissions were received from the Association of Law Societies, from Sapoa, from the Board of Estate Agencies and other bodies. It was then decided that there should be full disclosure of all relevant facts in connection with the legal phenomenon by means of which a developer offered a particular scheme, as is at present provided for in clause 4(l)(b). This provision in connection with disclosure also enables any potential purchaser to obtain correct legal advice in regard to the risk which he would be incurring if he should decide to participate in a particular scheme. In this connection I could also refer to the statements made by the hon. member for Hillbrow. It must be borne in mind that it is not only the interests of the purchaser that have to be considered, but that one should rather endeavour to strike a balance between the interests of all the parties involved. Consequently it is already the intention to intensify the penalty clauses, to which the hon. member for Paarl also referred, and in future to keep an eye on all circumstances surrounding the implementation of the legislation with a view to further action in future, if this should be necessary. It is also imperative that this Bill be finalized as soon as possible since the regulations for which the Bill makes provision cannot be prepared before the Bill has been passed through all its stages. The drawing up of such regulations will also be a time-consuming process owing to the fact that these, too, have to be cleared with interested parties. That is why it is of cardinal importance that as little time as possible be wasted in disposing of this Bill.

I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members to formulate the specific proposals to which they referred in their Second Reading speeches with a view to submitting them in the form of amendments during the Committee Stage. As hon. members indicated, this is a measure which we can discuss more fruitfully during the Committee Stage. Therefore I should like us to use the Committee Stage to effect possible improvements. I also want to suggest courteously that the Committee Stage should be taken within a reasonable period of time after the Second Reading.

*I also want to say that I intend moving an amendment during the Committee Stage which will have the effect of enabling the Minister, by way of a notice in the Gazette, to declare any scheme in terms of which interests in the use or occupation of immovable property are sold or leased to be a property time-sharing scheme for the purposes of this legislation. Apart from this it is also the intention to keep on scrutinizing this legislation very thoroughly, on an on-going basis, with a view to any possible practical problems which may arise in this connection. Therefore we shall also go through each argument which hon. members put forward today and also during the Committee Stage with a fine-tooth comb. In view of this I cannot, unfortunately, as I have indicated, accept the proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville.

I should like to refer next to the speech made by the hon. member for Paarl and thank him sincerely for a very interesting speech, one that was worth listening to. It is very clear that the hon. member has done exceptional research in this connection and I should like to thank him for supporting this measure and in particular for emphasizing its urgency. He also emphasized that it was essential that there should be full disclosure in the contracts so that the public would know precisely what their rights and obligations were.

The hon. member referred to the question of administration, which is very important. The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to it. In this connection I should like to refer to the provisions of clause 12(1)(a) in which it is very specifically stated that the Minister may make regulations—

The hon. member stated correctly that the draft legislation had already been published and that representations had been received by the department which had been processed into the legislation at present before this House.

The hon. member raised an interesting point in connection with the wording and the name of the legislation in the Afrikaans text. Suggestions have been put forward that we should change it to “eiendomsdeeltyd”, but one of the implications of doing so, as I see it, is that we would then have to make alterations to the English text as well, as well as throughout the Bill. This is apart from the fact that this is still a debatable point. I am no linguist, and for that reason I should like to take another look at the designation of these “time-sharing schemes” in future.

I should like to indicate that the proposal of the hon. member to increase the fines in clause 6 will also be acceptable. Finally, as far as the hon. member is concerned, I also wish to agree wholeheartedly with him that the consumer, the prospective purchaser, should take care that he is absolutely certain of the implications of any contracts which he enters into.

The hon. member for Langlaagte made friendly observations and in particular raised the points that this specific industry had a future, that increasing numbers of people would want to make use of the scheme and that it was consequently necessary for people to be protected. Similarly, the hon. member issued the warning that prospective purchasers should be very careful when they enter into contracts and that they should be aware of their rights and obligations. I can give the hon. member the assurance that it is the intention to apply these measures strictly, but we shall of course strike a balance between the interests of the various parties. I also wish to thank the hon. member for having expressed confidence in the legal profession this afternoon. As far as I know, this has not often happened in this House.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Stellebosch for his sound contribution. He made an exceptionally scientific speech and also pointed out that these scheme definitely had a future. What is also important is that the hon. member sees these specific property time-sharing schemes as a positive instrument for the consumer. Consequently I want to tell the hon. member that I am convinced that with such an objective approach as the one he displayed, a balance will ultimately be struck between the interests of the purchaser and those of the seller. The hon. member also made the point that there should not be excessive control and that one should make certain that the parties are, in the end, still able to operate within the free market system without any unnecessary control measures having to be introduced.

†I should like to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for his contribution today and for his support of the Bill. I think I have already dealt with certain of the matters which the hon. member raised when I replied to the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member has quite rightly said that in the last instance it is not possible to protect a man against his own folly. I think that is quite true. The hon. member also supports the view that the public has to be made aware of all their rights and obligations in terms of the contract and that there must at all times be full disclosure by the developers or managers to the public as far as these schemes are concerned. I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution.

*I should like to thank the hon. member for Vasco for his positive contribution this afternoon. Not only did he point out the urgency of the measure, but he also requested that practical implementation of this legislation should be examined strictly and with great discipline. I can give the hon. member that assurance.

†I now come to the hon. member for Hillbrow. I have already replied to quite a number of his questions. I have already referred to the question of the management and to clause 12(l)(d) in my reply. For the sake of the hon. member I should like to quote clause 12(l)(d)—

I can assure the hon. member that we would not like to see another Glen Anil. Fortunately, we have the benefit of the work of the commission as well as the legislation that came about, namely the Share Blocks Control Act and the Alienation of Land Act. Aspects of both measures could therefore be incorporated into this Bill.

I have noted the other remarks made by the hon. member for Hillbrow, which I think we can deal with fruitfully in the Committee Stage. I should like to invite the hon. member to put forward proposals with a view to discussing them and, if possible, improving them. As I have already indicated, there were not only representations by Sapoa; representations were also made, after the draft Bill had been published, by the Association of Law Societies, the Board of Estate Agents and other interested parties.

*I conclude by saying that the legislation is urgent and necessary, as has been emphasized here, and that it is a measure which is aimed at protecting the consumer, but which in fact requires a delicate balance to be maintained between the rights of the various parties. What is important is that we should bear in mind that it should not have a disruptive effect on existing schemes or schemes which are at present in the process of development, if this can in any way be prevented, because we could then in fact be seriously prejudicing the consumer. That is why I should like to repeat the invitation to hon. members to participate, owing to the urgency, in the Committee Stage and come forward with proposals which will enable us, where necessary, to improve the existing measure at present before this House. I should like to see that we create the greatest measure of legal certainty. It is clear, as was also stated by hon. members, that there is a growing market and an increasing interest on the part of the public. It seems to me that this form of holiday accommodation has for many people become the alternative in respect of a holiday place of one’s own at the sea or elsewhere. However, there is something I wish to emphasize in particular. I should like to make an earnest appeal to developers and administrators to look after the interests of the consumer with great circumspection, because to the extent to which they look after the interests of the consumer, to that extent will these schemes ultimately be a success.

Once again, I should like to thank all hon. members for their contributions.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

On 13 February 1981, the Travel Agents and Travel Agencies Bill, which was before the House at that time, was referred to a Select Committee so that greater clarity could be obtained concerning aspects which were in doubt at the time.

In the short period which remained before Parliament was prorogued on 26 February 1981, as a result of the general election which had been called, the Select Committee was naturally unable to complete its task. It was decided, therefore, to appoint the members of the Select Committee to a Commission of Inquiry so that they could fully investigate this proposed legislation.

As chairman of the commission, I should like to thank all the members of that commission for their considered contributions during the investigation. For purposes of the record I should also like to mention the names of the members of the commission who were responsible for formulating the Bill. Members of the commission who are still members of this House are Messrs. G. C. Ballot, C. J. van R. Botha, W. H. Delport, G. C. du Plessis, B. B. Goodall, J. H. Heyns, C. J. Ligthelm, R. P. Meyer, B. W. B. Page, H. E. J. van Rensburg, J. A. J. Vermeulen and A. J. Vlok. Mr. J. T. Albertyn stayed on as a member of the commission after his appointment as Railway Commissioner, and I thank him for accommodating us in this way. Mr. R. de V. Olckers is also thanked for the contribution he made before leaving the commission. I should also like to convey my sincere appreciation to Mr. J. B. Reitz, Director: Tourism, for his able valuable services as an adviser, and to Mr. Henning van Wijk, the secretary of the commission, for the able way in which he performed his task.

Before referring briefly to some of the more important amendments to the Bill proposed by the commission, I must emphasize again that after considering written memoranda and verbal evidence, the committee was unanimous in its conviction that legislation of this nature had become essential for the travel industry. It is of the utmost importance to the traveller at home as well as abroad that as a consumer he should be assured, when dealing with a South African travel agent, of a professional service which maintains high standards. The tourist or traveller should also know that he is adequately protected. The consumer should have the necessary confidence in the industry. With the passing of this Bill, those objectives, among other things, will be achieved.

Although the principles in this Bill are the same as those contained in the original Bill, the commission was led by its investigations to introduce several amendments and supplementary provisions into the new Bill. The most important principles in the Bill are, briefly, the following—

1. (i) the establishment of a statutory board; and
2. (ii) the provision of special arrangements in respect of consumer protection.

From the evidence before the commission it was clearly evident that an autonomous statutory board would be the appropriate body to enable the travel agency industry to regulate itself and ensure high professional standards. The industry will be strongly represented on the statutory board to be establishment in terms of clause 2. It amounts to a form of self-regulation, which was strongly advocated by the industry as a whole and endorsed by the commission and the Government.

The consumer protection that is being proposed in the present Bill involves a system which provides, on the one hand, for the safeguarding of money held in trust by the travel industry and, on the other hand, for the establishment of a fidelity fund. The commission found during its investigation that the aspect of consumer protection was an important requirement in creating confidence and professionalism in the travel industry, and it considerably expanded the provisions in this connection.

Chapter I of this Bill contains provisions relating to the proposed trust account and a travel agents fidelity fund. It appears that there is uncertainty in some circles about the meaning of these provisions. It is not the intention that the trust account should be a general joint account for all travel agents. It is an account which every individual travel agency can open with any registered banking institution of its own choice and in which it must deposit money held or received in connection with the business on account of any client, which will be determined by the Minister on the recommendation of the board. It is proposed that certain moneys should not be protected in this way, such as money which is paid over at once, or money in respect of which booking vouchers are issued at once. The establishment of the trust account was found necessary because the commission found during its investigations that there were travel agents who used the money held on account of clients for purposes other than those for which they had received it. In some cases, for example, it is used to defray current administrative expenses. It is essential that the interests of the consumer be protected at the point of payment.

Fairly vehement objections to clause 28 were received from various quarters, and especially from the organized travel agency industry. The argument was that the requirement that trust accounts should be opened in which money held by travel agents on behalf of the public should be deposited would mean additional administrative work for travel agents and would involve them in considerable additional expenses.

I do not want to go into the merits of these arguments, but I do want to say that the purpose of this provision is obvious, namely to protect the interests of the clients of travel agents, in other words, the travelling public—residents of this country as well as travellers from abroad. On this principle all are agreed, but there is difference of opinion concerning the way in which this should be brought about. Asata suggested a form of collective insurance as an alternative. The possibility was investigated, and I want to tell hon. members that at this stage there are still too many unanswered questions and uncertainties with regard to such a scheme for it to be accepted as an alternative and embodied in legislation. The problem is that neither my department nor I nor anyone else can negotiate agreements with insurance companies on behalf of the proposed board at this stage.

However, I do not wish to reject the proposal out of hand at this stage as a possible alternative. Therefore I have come to an agreement with Asata, which represents the vast majority of travel agents in South Africa, that clause 28 will be retained at this stage and that when the proposed board has come into being, it will then investigate and consider the matter in detail, and if it is able to work out or negotiate any possible alternatives, these will be submitted to me for my consideration. If the board were to propose an acceptable alternative, we could then introduce an appropriate amendment at a later stage. This would also be fully in line with the accepted concept and principle, as laid down in the report of the Commission of Inquiry and accepted by the Government, that the industry should be allowed to control and regulate itself as far as possible.

Meanwhile, I give hon. members and the industry the assurance and undertaking that I shall not put clause 28 into operation before the board has had an opportunity to investigate and consider the matter in the way I have just indicated. This means that initially we shall only put into operation those provisions relating to the establishment of the board, so that the board can be appointed to give attention to this matter and to other aspects as well. Clause 44 provides for such a course of action.

The board will also advise the Minister on any problems which may result from the implementation of such a trust account.

†Clause 30 of the legislation envisages the establishment of a Travel Agents Fidelity Fund. All travel agents will have to contribute on a regular and prescribed basis to this fund.

The extent of the contributions will be determined by the Minister on recommendation of the Travel Agents Board, which will consist mainly of persons actively engaged in the travel industry.

The Travel Agents Fidelity Fund is intended to protect the consumer against eventualities as set out in clause 35 of the Bill. This will create the necessary confidence in the travel industry and enhance South Africa’s position in the international travel world.

*At this stage I should like to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that during the recess a number of amendments were made to the Bill as introduced in this House last year. In some cases, this was done on the recommendation of the industry, while all the changes are regarded as improvements. I shall refer to only a few of the more important amendments.

1. (a) In clause 14, the second proviso has been omitted. This created a presumption that if any body of persons performed on behalf of its members an act pertaining to the occupation of travel agent, this was being done for reward, and would therefore be prohibited in terms of clause 14. The amendment will allow organizations such as sports clubs, church organizations and the like to continue arranging tours for their members, as long as they are limited to members and the organization does not profess to be a travel agent or advertise itself as such. This is prohibited by clause 27 in any case.
2. (b) Clause 18(3) initially provided only that if the proposed board approved an application for the licensing of premises, a licence had to be issued. It was argued that the discretionary power conferred upon the board in terms of this provision would be too wide, and we have therefore amended the clause to provide—in the form in which it is before hon. members now—that if the premises comply with the requirements prescribed by the Minister by regulation, the board shall approve the application for a licence.
3. (c) Clause 22, which deals with the right to enter premises and with the inspection of books and records, has been amended in order to confer this power only upon employees of the board who have been authorized thereto in writing by the board. In the original Bill, this power was also conferred upon members of the board, but upon reconsideration this was regarded as undesirable.
4. (d) Clause 24 has been amended to confer the power of granting exemptions upon the Minister, rather than upon the board, as originally provided for.
5. (e) Clause 28 has been amended by the introduction into subsection (2)(c) of a proviso which will authorise the board to refund to a travel agent a portion of the interest on investments paid to the board by a travel agent on behalf of the proposed fidelity fund. The portion of the interest which will be refundable will be detemined by the Minister on the recommendation of the board and can be any percentage in theory. This is a very important concession and was made at the request of and after consultation with the industry. It is hoped that if this measure is put into operation, the arrangement will serve as an incentive for travel agents to earn the maximum interest on trust money, in their own interests, and in the interests of the proposed fidelity fund.
6. (f) Finally, clause 44 of the original Bill has been omitted. In terms of that clause, the board was authorised to delegate any of its powers to any of its members or employees. Upon reconsideration this provision was regarded as undesirable and omitted.

Clause 8 makes adequate provision for the day-to-day functions performed by the staff of the board.

†Finally I should like to refer to the growth potential of tourism in South Africa and the necessity of this Bill as far as the industry is concerned.

It is estimated that the world population will increase by 2% per annum to 5,2 billion people in 1990. It is further estimated that international tourist arrivals throughout the world increased by 4% in 1981 and that total world receipts from international tourism rose by 11% in that year. Because of South Africa’s favourable climatic conditions, and a variety of other attractions, the country is bound to attract a growing number of foreign tourists in future. The demand for travel will continue to expand and more people with discretionary spending power will turn from saturated tourist resorts around the globe towards new tourist destinations in the relatively unexplored regions of the Southern Hemisphere. Similarly, with the increase in the South African population, it must be expected that more and more South Africans will embark on travel abroad in future, as well as leisure travel inside their own country, and in the process make increased use of the services of travel agents. In almost every tourist country in the world, the tourist is safeguarded by an appropriate Act, except in South Africa.

As the Commission pointed out in its report, legislation of this nature was initiated in South Africa on the advice, amongst others, of the Secretary-General of the Universal Federation of Travel Agents Association in order to bring South Africa in line with the rest of the world. Since South Africa is a relatively remote country, the costs of transportation to and from South Africa are relatively high, and it is understandable that tourists will give preference to a country in which they are protected by law against losses owing, for example, to the incompetence of some travel agents.

This Bill, when enacted, will not only promote professionalism in the tourism industry and safeguard tourists, but will enhance South Africa’s attraction as a tourist distination.

I feel that I must make mention here of the highly responsible and co-operative attitude and approach displayed by leaders in the travel agency industry. This is particularly true in the case of Asata, and in particular in respect of their attitude in the more recent past when the originally somewhat emotional approach—of which we all read in the media—made way for a much more sober and responsible approach and attitude. I wish to thank the President of Asata for the understanding and responsible approach.

I must stress here that the intention is not, and never was—as this measure was interpreted in certain quarters—to force any legitimate travel agent out of business, or to break down the good work done by trade organizations in the past. The only objective is to regulate the activities of the travel agency industry in their own interest and in the interests of the travelling public and of the country.

Lastly, I wish to indicate that I am prepared to accept the amendments to clauses 4. 12 and 20 printed in the name of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, in anticipation I wish to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for accepting my amendments which will make my task easier in supporting this Bill.

The travel agent in South Africa provides two services. Firstly, he provides services for travel in South Africa and to foreign lands and, secondly, he provides services for travel in South Africa for foreigners wishing to visit South Africa. He must also for businessmen make travel and accommodation arrangements so that they can carry on their business.

We live in a country richly blessed with tourist attractions. As the S.A. Tourist Corporation rightly says, South Africa is a world in one country. Up to the present the number of visitors from overseas has been comparatively small, but the future holds out great hope and in the year 2000 we can expect between 2 million and 3 million foreign visitors to come to South Africa. In South Africa alone at that time there will be 50 million people of whom 22 million will be holidaying at one time of the year or another. We have earned about R600 million to R800 million in foreign exchange from tourists to South Africa, but this is hardly enough.

Tourism has many facets. There is rural tourism, congress tourism, shopping tourism, excursion tourism, short-time tourism, open-air-recreation tourism and old-age tourism, and there is a whole host of methods of touring. What is more, tourism is a modern social need and the travel agent’s role is to create a demand for tourism, but in future he will have to pay more attention to local tourism. We have to provide more local tours.

Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the travel agent must become a highly skilled professional because there is no future in the travel agent’s business unless the travel agent of the future becomes a travel and leisure-time consultant in every sense of the word. I am sorry to say that that does not apply to many today, altough there are a large number who are very capable. A consultant must be there to help both the holiday tourist as well as the business tourist. In addition, in the year 2000 there will be many Black, Coloured and Indian travel agents in South Africa, because of the 22 million holiday-makers and tourists in the year 2000 the majority may be Black. South African travel agents must realize that although the future may be “Black”, it is going to be very bright indeed.

In dealing with the Bill, I would like to say that this Bill has become necessary and is based on the principles accepted unanimously by the commission and agreed to, as the hon. the Minister said, on 2 April 1982. This commission came into being as a result of the recommendations of the Universal Federation of Travel Agents Association—of which South Africa is a member—in the light of international experience, that the South African Government take steps to establish by law some form of control over the activities of travel agents and to secure a high standard of professionalism so as to ensure that South Africa will maintain a high standard in the international community.

The most important problems encountered by the commission were how to define “travel agent”, what form of control and regulation to have, the form of consumer protection, the position of hotels, the registration of travel agents, the licensing of premises, the role of scheduled air-carriers and in particular the present lack of professionalism and how to provide education and training. The definition of a travel agent, as recommended by the commission, is contained in the Bill. The form of control and regulation is one of the principles laid down in the Bill, namely that the majority of members of the statutory board shall be, by nomination, from travel agent organizations themselves. I wish to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for accepting my amendment because that amendment will ensure that only travel agents will account for eight of the 11 members of the Travel Agents Board.

The form of consumer protection involves much consideration. The commission recommended that every travel agent should keep separate trust accounts, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, and that there should be a fidelity fund, and hotels must only register if they carry out all the functions that are required of a travel agent. There should also be compulsory registration of travel agents as well as licensing of their premises. Both the S.A. Airways and scheduled foreign carriers should be exempted from the Bill. The commission felt that the board, when established, should lay down the standards of professionalism as well as the necessary education and training that might be required.

The Bill incorporates all the recommendations of the commission. The hon. the Deputy Minister has decided to bind himself, on behalf of the Government, to the recommendations of the commission, as he has stated in his address to the House. We on this side of the House will support the Bill. As I have said, I intend introducing certain amendments, which the hon. the Deputy Minister has already indicated he would accept.

The purpose of the Bill, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, is to promote the sound development of the travel agents’ industry by providing a Travel Agents Board. The Bill also provides for the registration of travel agents and the licensing of travel agencies, as well as the establishment of a fidelity fund.

I should like to deal first of all with clause 1, which contains the definitions. This makes the legislation pertaining to travel agents absolutely clear. He books accommodation, he books passage on all forms of transport and he organizes and arranges tours. Those are the acts which pertain to the occupation of a travel agent. They are clearly stated and easy to follow in the Bill. In terms of the definition “reward” means any reward, whether monetary or otherwise. Therefore a travel agent is one who performs, for reward, any acts pertaining to a travel agent.

What do we mean by the organizing and arranging of tours? According to the dictionary it means to form into a whole from independent parts or to give a definite or ordinary structure to an operation or a particular form of activity. Therefore tour operators who arrange tours are persons who put something in order and plan details beforehand.

In terms of the definition a “travel agency” is defined as the premises from which a travel agent works.

I should like to refer now to the next clause, which deals with the composition of the board and lays down the principles envolved. I refer to clause 3 and I quote—

Clause 4 determines that the board shall consist of 11 members. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in declaring himself prepared to accept my amendment, has put it quite clearly, that eight persons shall be appointed—from various organizations—“… who are either actively engaged” in performance for reward of any act pertaining to the occupation of a travel agent or who have so been engaged not longer than one year prior to the appointment. This clause also lays down the manner in which the nomination shall be called for. In other words, the Minister shall go to the various organizations and ask them to nominate people to serve on the board. It will be up to organizations such as Asata and Itao, the independent organization, and any other travel organization, to put their nominations before the Minister. The Minister shall then have the right to appoint them.

The period of appointment shall be for three years. It also lays down the normal qualifications of any South African to serve on the board and it says—

I should like to deal with this point a little later when I come to the question of the committees because there are a large number of travel agents operating in South Africa who are most capable and who can be utilized by the industry to good advantage. The hon. the Minister himself is able to nominate three members. It is my intention to deal with the statement that the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism made in this House on Wednesday, 16 March, when he dealt with the rationalization of tourism. However, the appointment of the Director of Tourism and two members from the new body, the South African Tourism Board …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I just want to ask whether there is a quorum in this House.

Order! There are at present 32 hon. members in this House. As the hon. member knows. 30 is a quorum. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may proceed.

I was dealing with the three members to be appointed by the hon. the Minister and I was referring to the new South African Tourism Board which the hon. the Minister and his department have agreed to appoint. I would suggest that there should be some form of co-ordination between these two boards and that it should be possible that one or two members of that bodies should also be members of the Travel Agents Board so that there is effective co-ordination and, on the other hand that members of the new Travel Agents Board should serve on the new South African Tourism Board, unless the hon. the Minister has in mind some way of incorporating these bodies into the same organization.

The next important aspect is the powers of the board as contained in clause 7. These powers are very important. It is also very important that the travel agents realize the amount of power that has been given to them of this legislation. The first power is—

This in effect means that the board can advise and assist newcomers who wish to become travel agents; in other words, there must be no monopoly in this industry in the future in that it could only consist of old-established people and that no newcomers will be allowed in. At the same time it is the duty of the board to assist old-established members of the industry.

The second power of the board is—

It will be the duty of the board to approach the universities and technikons to arrange courses for the training of travel agents and also to lay down standards of qualifications. It has to gather statistical information and one of the things the present industry is very short of is statistics with regard to the business itself.

The board shall also have the power—

It is not necessary that these people be South Africans. They have the right to appoint whomsoever they like from within the industry. I want to appeal to the board, when it comes into existence and when it has specialized committees, to make use of many of the foreign people who are actively engaged in the industry.

Lastly, and of very great importance, the board has—

This means that it is the travel agents themselves who are going to make their own code of conduct in conjunction with the hon. the Minister and the department.

Here I wish to point out that the following clauses deal with the question of what funds the board shall have and how it shall obtain them, and also with the manner in which the board shall keep its financial records. The board will also have to lay its report upon the Table of this House once a year. It will also have to keep registers, and one of the amendments which the hon. the Deputy Minister has accepted here does away with the payment of a prescribed fee in order to have a look at the register. This has really been a waste of time.

Clause 13 deals with categories of travel agents. This is very important because there are in general three broad categories of travel agents, namely the retail travel agents, who are in direct contact with the public, the wholesale travel agents and the tour operators. Wholesale travel agents are those who conduct organized tours, which include all sorts of transport arrangements and prior booking of accommodation, providing various tickets at lower prices than the person himself would normally be able to organize.

Tour operators normally provide transport facilities as well as some of the other functions of the wholesalers. In their case, however, their contact with the general public is much more limited, and it may also be possible that the licensing of their premises will be different to those of the retailers. In terms of clause 14 a person is prohibited from being a travel agent unless he is registered as such. Clause 15 deals with the registration of a travel agent and the prescribed requirements for all travel agents. I wish to warn the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must ensure that no person will be precluded from becoming a travel agent by the board prescribing such requirement that only existing travel agents can remain in business and obtain a monopoly through the back door. It is absolutely essential that other people should be able to get into this particular industry.

Clause 16 stipulates that all premises must be licensed. I hope that when the licensing is done one will have the different licences to which I have referred earlier. I am delighted to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister has amended clause 22, in terms of which the right of entry into premises is now restricted to employees, and no longer to members of the board. That is indeed a great improvement. I also wish to deal with the question of exemptions. I realize that the exempting of scheduled air carriers is a very sensitive matter. There are, however, allegations made …

What clause is that?

Clause 24. There are allegations made that airline companies do carry out the functions of travel agents, and I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister should be very careful to see to it that where such sensitive matters, which extend across international boundaries, create difficulties for the national carrier, something should be done to make sure that this does not take place.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer now to what has probably been the most controversial stipulation in the Bill now before the House. That is the stipulation dealing with trust accounts and with the Travel Agents Fidelity Fund.

What clause is that now?

That is clause 28, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister also referred earlier. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister knows at least what I am talking about, even though the hon. member for Tygervallei may not know. [Interjections.]

Henceforth all travel agents will have to invest certain money in a trust account. As the hon. the Deputy Minister said earlier, this has created a tremendous controversy amongst travel agents. Nevertheless, I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister has quite clearly undertaken to allow the introduction of what may be referred to as an industry group bonding scheme, whereby the whole of the industry will be able to take out an insurance policy to cover any losses they may suffer. In the first instance I trust the hon. the Deputy Minister will try to ensure that the regulations in respect of trust accounts will be drafted as speedily and as simply as possible so that travel agents will at least know what they must do. I say this because there is a tremendous amount of confusion among travel agents as to exactly what is meant by a trust account. The only people who can lay down what it is to be will be the Travel Agents Board itself. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to ensure that these regulations are framed as soon as possible, to ensure that they are simple and also to ensure that they do not involve travel agents in a tremendous amount of administrative work. They fear that they are going to become involved in a tremendous amount of bookkeeping. I ask the hon. the Minister to see to this as soon as possible and at the same time go into the whole question of whether there should be the alternative of a group industry bonding scheme. I am also pleased to note that the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to give travel agents a portion of the interest earned on their trust accounts back to them, and I am certain that they are very grateful in this regard.

The fidelity fund that is to be established will be there to sustain losses that may be incurred by the travelling public because of the misbehaviour of some or other travel agent such as decamping with the funds, or even perhaps going bankrupt, the whole of the administration of the fidelity fund will depend upon whether or not there are sufficient funds in the fidelity fund to cover any losses that may be incurred. It is here that I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it may be a good idea in the early stages for an insurance policy to be taken out to cover any possible losses until such time as sufficient interest is earned from the trust fund. In terms of clause 41 the board has the right to introduce and negotiate insurance agreements. I should like to make one appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Where one has an industry group bounding scheme…

There are only 44 clauses so we only have three more to go.

Sir, one would almost have thought that this was a football match. We have just about reached the tryline because I can hear them shouting!

Foreign tourist entertainment. [Interjections.]

Come on, Reuben, score a try now!

I am going to try very hard. I want to state that I believe that an industry group insurance scheme should be set up in such a way that the amount of premium paid by each travel agent should be based on gross turnover. It would be unfair to accept a large-scale travel agent and a small-scale travel agent to pay exactly the same insurance premium. Therefore I suggest that a change be made in this regard.

In conclusion, Sir, I should like to say that I feel that a maximum period in respect of the coming into operation of clause 44(2) should be provided for because, as the provision stands now, some sections need never be promulgated. This may negate the very purpose for which this Bill was introduced and I would like to suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister consider another amendment that I shall move that this period should not he longer than one year from the date fixed by the State President.

I think that when this legislation comes into effect it will be of great benefit to all travel agents and that it will also be of great benefit to the South African public in general.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout digressed to such an extent that it was quite clear to me that he had not been a member of the commission. I find it strange that the members of the official Opposition who served on the commission are not here and are therefore not participating in the discussion. The hon. member made his Second Reading speech and dealt with the Committee Stage simultaneously; he was well on the way to dealing with the Third Reading as well. If I understood the hon. member correctly it did at least seem as though he supported the Bill. I want to thank him for that.

It was a privilege for me to be a member of the commission of inquiry. For me—and I think for all the members of the commission—it was a pleasant experience to serve on the commission under the able guidance of the chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. His conduct of proceedings and positive guidance compelled great respect from all of us. It was a pleasure to work with him and the other members and to serve on the commission. What applies to them also applies to Mr. Reitz, the Director of Tourism, and Mr. Van Wyk who, as secretary of the commission, served us most ably.

The great degree of unanimity is the best proof of the pleasant atmosphere which prevailed. In this way the many snags and problems could be ironed out and solved. I therefore want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the introduction of the Bill.

I am pleased that it is now possible to discuss the Bill in this House. The time has come for legislation in this regard to be placed on the Statute Book. With this legislation we are reaching another milestone in placing the tourist industry on the road of confidence and prosperity. The fact that the official Opposition has signified that they support it—and I assume that the other Opposition parties will also do so—is proof of the thorough work done by the commission. Consequently I also want to thank the Opposition in this connection.

On the one hand the tourist industry may be judged by the fact that it will probably not be long before we shall be able to attract one million overseas tourists to the Republic of South Africa. It is also a fact that tourists who come here spend an average of 18 days here and that under the present circumstances they ensure the country of more than R500 million in foreign exchange. This does not include their fares to South Africa either.

If one adds domestic tourism to this, one finds that there has also been a great improvement in this connection. In 1981 domestic tourism already exceeded R1 000 million. This in turn gave our economy a tremendous boost. Many of our natural assets of which we are so proud, may decline and diminish, but tourism ensures an inexhaustible income as long as we take good care of that natural asset and do not abuse it.

We have the scenerey, the mountains, the flora, the beautiful beaches, to give but a few examples. Our popular national parks remain a tremendous attraction. We are also blessed with a wonderful climate. A good climate, friendly people and a unique country were the most important reasons given when an evaluation was recently made among tourists. Our country’s scenic attractions, our wild animals, our wildlife, the tribal life of our natives, our historical monuments, our sporting facilities and our numerous holiday resorts are held in high repute by visitors to South Africa. It is also a fact that more than 30% of the foreign tourists who visit South Africa for the first time, return for a subsequent visit. Tourists are not only an important source of revenue. Hundreds of thousands of tourists come here and then return to their countries as voluntary ambassadors, eager to eliminate misunderstandings and prejudices about South Africa. Because tourism has become such an important industry, it will one day become our largest industry. All we have to do is nurture it, look after it. It has become of the greatest importance for the domestic and overseas tourist that he is assured of professional service with high standards when he negotiates with travel agents. The interests of the traveller have to be protected and this Bill makes provision for a statutory board by means of which the travel agents will be able to regulate themselves, to establish and to maintain high professional standards. In the evidence heard a great measure of self-regulation was advocated and provision is being made for this idea in this Bill.

The second principle which arises is the protection of the travelling public. Consumer protection can best be promoted if the travel agents are required to open a trust account to prevent them from using the public’s money for their own purposes.

It is the aim of the Government that the proposed board will work out the details which can subsequently be inserted into this legislation. The most important principle is that the industry is to be allowed to organize and regulate itself as far as possible. The clause pertaining to the Fidelity Fund to which all travel agents have to contribute on a fixed basis is also very important. These contributions will be determined by the hon. the Minister on the recommendation of the board. The object of the Fidelity Fund is to protect the consumer and to promote confidence in the industry.

That is all I have to say. Further particulars can be ironed out during the Committee Stage. I am of the opinion that this Bill meets the important requirement that the tourist may rest assured that he will get a professional service of high standard in this country when he—or she—negotiates with a South African travel agent to undertake a journey in South Africa. The Republic of South Africa has tourist potential. Irrespective of the fact that we are hampered by the long distances that have to be travelled to get here we have all the necessary attractions to lure thousands of tourists to this country. This Bill will bring the necessary confidence in our tourist industry so that tourism may be expanded to become the top foreign exchange earner and to forge the bonds of friendship in a world which would otherwise be foreign to, ignorant of and even hostile towards us.

With these few words I take great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we listened attentively to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who made a special study of this legislation. I think one has to give him credit for pointing out certain problems to this House in a very expert way, clause by clause, and for indicating once again that it may perhaps be unnecessary for us to act so strictly. I rather like his statement about the interest one should use, because I believe that one should use one’s interest. What I, however, find important is that the hon. member did not follow the same pattern as in the case of time-sharing. I wonder whether he and I should not discuss this matter at some time or other.

The hon. member for Kempton Park also made his contribution, and naturally, because he served on the Select Committee and also had the benefit of a great deal of evidence, he made a very good speech here.

Today we in South Africa find ourselves in the position that with our growth and development—as is the case in any country—tourism has become one of our largest sources of revenue. In countries like Spain and other European countries tourism is the largest industry. When one visits Japan one finds that Tokyo which accommodates 12 million people also has 12 million tourists annually. The way tourists are treated is important.

In Japan when one presses a bell, a light in the shape of a rose flashes on. This indicates that someone is waiting for you. The treatment one receives in that country is so pleasant that the country is immediately acceptable to one. The services that that country offers make one love that country. A tourist is not a person who is terribly concerned about his expenditure. He is far more concerned about the way he is treated. For that reason one cannot do otherwise but note with much gratitude that the Government has spend a great deal of time on the matter of tourism.

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I only have a few questions I want to put to him. The term “travel agency” is defined in the Bill. I think it is difficult to operate trust accounts. These are among the most difficult accounts because the entries etc. have to be made in a certain way. All of us who are not attorneys know that this is in fact a major problem. The insurance aspect is certainly being handled correctly. As the hon. the Deputy Minister also said this is not a matter he can give a final reply to today and the Travel Agents Board, after it has been appointed, can go into this matter further.

Unfortunately I was out of the House for just a moment when the hon. the Minister referred to clause 24 which deals with exemptions. I have been to the Holy Land many times. One of my most rewarding experiences was to visit Israel with a church organization and specifically to visit the holy places in the company of an expert who has had training in this field and who has knowledge of the country. This was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and one of the experiences which has profited me most.

It is unclear to me in the Bill what the position of a clergyman, a cultural organization is—I do not want to digress too much—or that of a sporting body or a student organization. What happens in the case of the clergyman who wants to take members of his congregation on a trip? If he sends out a circular to his congregation, or even goes a little further than that, will that be regarded as advertising? Actually he is also going to make use of the services of a travel agency. I therefore think we should make provision to ensure that these people do not have their hands tied. I should like to have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply on this matter.

I do not have much more to say. I just want to say that there is something about tourism in South Africa which has struck me. We have the problem that the heartland in South Africa is relatively-speaking just as large as the heart of a person. It consists of central Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand area. A person’s heart is 2% of his body and the Witwatersrand is 2% of the total area of South Africa, but 60% of the population, and in particular the White population, lives there. That is where things are happening. Now one has the problem that when the tourist arrives in Johannesburg, the first travel agent that gets hold of him rushes him off to the bushveld or to the National Park.

Or to Soweto.

Yes, or to Soweto.

Or to Langlaagte. [Interjections.]

Yes, the hon. member does not realize how important Langlaagte is. He spoke in ignorance. Gold was discovered in Langlaagte in 1886 and that event will be celebrated in a few years’ time, also with an eye on the tourist.

Then we shall be governing.

I hope that this House will vote a great deal of money for that celebration in 1986.

I have a request to make to the hon. Minister. It is that travel agencies and other organizations should be given certain advice. Every city’s sight-seeing attractions should be categorized. In this connection I am thinking for example of the Sterkfontein caves. There are for example no toilet facilities for visitors. That is not good enough. One also thinks of the famous musical fountain, but facilities are lacking in that case as well. Our sight-seeing attractions should be classified into categories, for example categories A, B and C. The department should do this. It should be done so that travel agencies know exactly what sight-seeing attractions are available. In that way they come to the attention of the travel agencies and we eliminate shortcomings. This is not destructive criticism. We have to begin somewhere. It is, however, important for us to rectify these matters.

Another aspect which has struck me is that we in this country have not yet learned that the Afrikaner, the Englishman or the Greek is of particular value to a visitor to our country. Women students at our universities could for example earn extra money by treating foreign visitors to student songs and by offering them meals on university campuses. In that way overseas visitors could be entertained in a truly South African way and could become acquainted with our traditions.

With these few words we support the legislation and ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to the questions on clergymen and student organizations.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte indicated that they supported this Bill, and we thank him for doing so. I do not think all his recommendations are equally acceptable, but he nevertheless made recommendations which will certainly be considered in due course.

I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Kempton Park. He competently praised South Africa as a tourist country. On this historic occasion for our travel agency industry it is important that we point out once again that the travel agency industry is, in fact, the cornerstone of tourism in South Africa, and certainly, in any country. The tourist industry in South Africa—this was also referred to this afternoon—will become a vast industry in the years that lie ahead, as it has already become in certain overseas countries. That is why we as legislators are compelled to do all we can to remove any obstacles which could restrict this industry. That is why we are grateful that we are able to discuss this new legislation here today. As far back as the ’sixties, it was said that if something were to happen to the gold industry—we do not think this would easily happen—the tourist industry would fill that gap. However, there are still a tremendous number of undeveloped resources which have to be exploited to the benefit of our country and its people.

Experts always state three very important prerequisites. These are firstly that travelling and accommodation expenses and the exaltation of these expenses should be realistic. Secondly, a high standard of service should be rendered at all times. Thirdly, the general public must have confidence in this industry. Now it is true—and one of the hon. members referred to this—that the tourist who comes to this beautiful country does not mind what he has to pay, but if these three prerequisites are not met, he would be reluctant to revisit this beautiful country of ours. It is fairly generally known, and the commission has confirmed this, that there are two serious problems in our travel agency industry. It was therefore a good thing that the commission was able to research these matters very thoroughly and carefully on the basis of the large amount of evidence, both oral and written, which was submitted to us and that we were able to determine that the real problems in our travel agency industry were that there was inadequate protection for the traveller, i.e. the consumer, and also that there was inadequate protection and control, or self-regulation, by the industry itself.

When one speaks about control by the industry, there are different options available to one in this regard. There are different options we could have considered. One possible option is when one could say: This industry is so important that it ought to be controlled directly by the State. Of course, in a free market system such as ours, we would not feel very happy about such a recommendation. Another option is that we could have said: Maintain the status quo and allow the industry to control and regulate itself. Of course, this would not have been acceptable to the commission either, and even less so to the Government. The industry has had the opportunity of controlling and regulating itself and I think a considerable measure of success has been achieved through Isata. However, there is one major flaw—and it is not their fault; it is due to circumstances—and that is that all the partners in the industry are not members of Isata. That is why only about half of the industry has benefited from such self-regulation and control.

A third option is that we as a legislature should enable the industry to control itself, and that for that purpose statutory powers should be granted to it. Because this procedure has been adopted, I think this is a standard Bill we have before us here today. It is an excellent piece of legislation which is now being placed on the Statute Book for the first time. As such, we as a legislature are making history here today. When one speaks of self-management, one could ask the question: How does one do this? There are various ways in which one can do this. As I have already said, the commission has decided to give the industry a statutory body with which it can regulate and manage itself. However, by simply allowing it to exercise control over itself, we would not have achieved a great deal, since there are a number of very important prerequisites. If the industry, the individual members of the industry, were free to decide whether or not they wanted to be controlled, we would not have made much progress. That is why it has been specifically written into the legislation that no one may practise this industry unless they have obtained exemption in terms of this legislation or in terms of an application to the hon. the Minister. No one may practise this industry unless they have been registered as a travel agent, taken out a licence as a travel agent, and the travel agency has registered the premises in which they practise this industry.

Finally—and this is the third important aspect—the present legislation aims at freeing this industry from the problems it is still experiencing at present. Of course, this is the aspect to which hon. members have already referred; the aspect of protection. If the general public does not have confidence in this industry, they are not going to visit our beautiful country as tourists. That is why it was necessary to devise a system of protection. In fact, we have a number of options in this regard. However, I wish to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I appreciate the attitude he has adopted towards the industry. I appreciate the fact that he has told the industry that he will first establish the board, and that he will decide at a later stage, in terms of clause 44, when he will promulgate that part of the legislation dealing with protection.

As I have already said, there are a number of options which could be exercised. I do not wish to bind myself in any respect, but I almost wish to make a plea for the proposed protection measure which the legislature is making available to the industry, the value of which has been proven time and again in legislation. Only last week we dealt with an amending Bill with regard to the fidelity fund of a certain profession. We were able to indicate how, over a period of 40 years, this body has shown that it was able to stand the test of time. In these times of storm and stress, I do not think there is a better and more correct system for the protection of the consumer, particularly in this case, in which he is dealing with money which is, in fact, trust money. I am speaking about the system of trust accounts and fidelity funds. These are beneficial to the industry. Furthermore, they indisputably constitute the best possible form of protection for the traveller. However, it is a very good thing that the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to put that matter in full to the board which is to be established. Consequently, that board can discuss the matter and scrutinize it in order to make sure that it has been adapted to the whole industry.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a sincere word of thanks to everyone, our legal draftsmen in particular, who prepared this fine piece of legislation for us, who have performed a tremendous task in the process, to the benefit of this very important industry, and to the industry itself, which is going to ensure enormous revenue for South Africa and all its people in the years which lie ahead. We wish to say to all of them that they should make full use of this piece of legislation, that they should do so for the sake of South Africa and all its people.

Mr. speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park has made a very interesting speech this afternoon, in which he has highlighted some aspects of this measure which are worthy of consideration.

Mr. Speaker, commissions are bodies one often does not look forward to sitting on because sometimes they can be really cumbersome and boring in their deliberations, which often seem to be endless. However, I must say that serving on this particular commission was an absolute pleasure because it was so very interesting. This, Mr. Speaker, I believe, is what is required to make a commission of this nature pleasant to serve on. It was tremendously interesting. We had as chairman a gentleman who happens to be today the hon. the Deputy Minister who is now in charge of this Bill. In those days he graced the Whips’ benches and was also a member of the Select Committee, which was subsequently converted into a commission owing to the fact that Parliament was prorogued early pending a general election. He then served as chairman of that commission, and under his leadership this piece of legislation was completely redesigned. What we have before us here today, I should say, could almost be said to have been created ab initio.

I should also like to pay tribute to both Mr. Reitz and Mr. Henning van Wyk, who served that commission throughout, and I should also like to remind the House that we considered no fewer than 23 written memoranda. There were 16 organizations that came along and gave verbal evidence in support of their memoranda and we had before us evidence from a complete cross-section of the travel industry in the Republic of South Africa. A reminder about the long title of the Bill that was introduced into this House in 1981 will indicate what I mean when I say that we have before us today what I would call a completely redesigned Bill. The long title of the 1981 Bill read—

The Bill before us today, as we all know, provides for a great deal more than that. The Bill seeks, inter alia—

So it goes on. I was very pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister in his Second Reading speech made reference to the fact that a great deal of unfortunate, uncalled for and, I would venture to say, snide criticism was levelled at the members of the commission in that it was suggested that those gentlemen did not know anything about the travel industry so who were they to say what was good and what was bad for the travel industry. The hon. the Deputy Minister also referred in his Second Reading speech to the attitude of certain people. He said—

I want to say that I am pleased that we did not debate this Bill this time last year because I would have had a great deal more to say in regard to this particular aspect. However, tempers cool as time passes. I would just like to remind people in the travel industry, people in high places in the travel industry, and people from all walks of life in South Africa that when this Parliament sets up a commission to investigate a certain subject, its members do not do so as experts in that field. We call on experts to advise and guide us. What would happen if every time we had to consider a matter regarding the travel industry, we had to have Parliament consisting only of travel agents? It would certainly suit that travel industry but just imagine the sort of Parliament we would have in this country! We would have to have a Parliament for panel beaters, for motor mechanics, for coal merchants, for diamond cutters and a Parliament for practically every industry in every walk of life. I say, therefore, that we do not profess to be travel agents and we do not profess to be airline operators. However, we are legislators and, as such, I believe that the commission did its best on a completely non-party basis to produce the piece of legislation we have before us here today.

In this legislation the commission has sought to protect both the public and the travel agent. I want to stress this point because I think that the inference has been drawn that we have sought only to protect the public. That is incorrect. In this measure one will find that there is a great deal of protection for the travel agent. In fact, one may even argue that in some instances we are almost trying to protect them from themselves. However, that is what one does for the public as well. When one legislates one tries to protect the public from themselves as well.

Some aspects of this Bill may seem unduly harsh but they are all there to serve a purpose. I also want to say that they are all there as a result of the evidence submitted to the commission. To a great extent the discipline incorporated in this measure is of the self-imposed variety, and this was what was recommended strongly by both the industry and the commission in its deliberations.

I could deal with a great many other topics but I want to conclude, because I think the hon. the Deputy Minister would like to reply to this debate and have his measure passed through all its stages this afternoon, by quoting from an article in Leadership S.A. by Mr. Eberhard Gennrich, the managing director of HBG Travel and an immediate past president of Asata. I must say that I have not always been ad idem with Mr. Gennrich, but I agree with him where he says—

He went on to say—

That is Mr. Gennrich’s opinion and I respect his opinion there, but I think he is correct when he says: “It is an exemplary piece of legislation by world standards.” It is indeed with a view to world standards that this legislation was formulated because the aim was to bring South Africa and the travel industry in South Africa on a par with what pertains in the rest of the world. This was one of the motives behind the legislation.

Finally, let us again return to what Mr. Gennrich says. In the opening paragraph of this article he says—

Quite a remarkable figure!

We on these benches have much pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to thank the hon. member for Umhlanga for his kind words about me. I want to tell the House that all members of the commission worked together in a spirit of co-operation, but I want to express special thanks to the hon. member for Umhlanga for his contribution as a member of the commission to the work done by the commission to have the Bill introduced. In a balanced speech he gave a good perspective of the legislation and for that I wish to thank him.

*There was a very good spirit of co-operation on the commission, and I should like to place on record this afternoon the fact that the legislation arose from an attitude of absolute co-operation and a positive wish to create a special measure by means of this legislation, not only in the interests of the travel industry, but for tourism in South Africa in future. I have taken cognizance of the standpoints of hon. members, and these will be examined by the department as well. The entire debate which has taken place here this afternoon will be sent to the Travel Agents Board which is to be established, so that they may take cognizance of it.

†I should like to thank the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for the keen interest he has taken in this measure and the keen interest he takes in tourism in general. Unfortunately I have to say that the amendment which appeared the first time in his name on today’s Order Paper is unacceptable. Those which appeared earlier, however, are acceptable. I should like to compliment the hon. member on his insight into the legislation. I want to refer to a few matters which he raised.

The co-ordination between the proposed travel agents board and the proposed South African tourism board is a very important matter which will be kept in mind although there is no doubt that there will be contact and liaison at executive level. As far as the requirements for registration are concerned, it is accepted that they will be drafted in such a way that newcomers will not be precluded from entering the industry. We are opposed to any monopoly coming into being in this industry. As far as the airlines are concerned, the matter will be watched carefully. We are adamant that the regulations are to be published as soon as possible. The board will therefore be appointed almost immediately or as soon as we are in a position to do so, and the regulations will follow as soon as possible thereafter. The board will have to make recommendations on these regulations. I should like to thank the hon. member for his contribution.

*I should like to thank the hon. member for Kempton Park very sincerely for his kind words this afternoon. I also want to thank the hon. member for the important contribution he made as a member of the commission. Furthermore, I thank him for his kind words to the adviser and the secretary of the commission. The hon. member for Kempton Park emphasized, in a fine speech, the great importance of the tourist and of tourism in future. He made the important point that as a result of this legislation, the tourist could be assured of obtaining professional services when consulting a travel agent.

I want to thank the hon. member for Langlaagte for his support. I just want to add that the question of exemption was specifically dealt with in my Second Reading speech.

It is not very clear.

However, there is something I should like to add. The way we see the matter, the sending of a circular to members—as in the case mentioned by the hon. member—will not amount to “advertising”. We do not wish to curtail this type of activity. That is why we have removed from the legislation the proviso which would have prohibited it, as I indicated in my Second Reading speech. I take it that with this I have satisfied the hon. member.

As far as the attractions of Johannesburg are concerned, I think the hon. member should take up that aspect of his speech with the Johannesburg Publicity Association. It is very important that the people who live in the area should show the same enthusiasm with regard to their area and should point out its attractions to the tourist.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Newton Park very sincerely for the speech he made here this afternoon. He raised an important point in connection with the protection of the consumer. I have taken cognizance of the hon. member’s standpoint. On the commission the hon. member was very strongly in favour of the statutory board which is now to be established. I also want to thank the hon. member for the very solid contribution he made on the commission throughout.

I believe that I have now thanked all the hon. members. I trust that this measure will be of great service to the travelling public and to tourism in South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 4:

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

This means that the board will now consist of 11 members, eight of whom will be appointed from the ranks of the travel agents themselves. I am glad to say that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he will accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to confirm that I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

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

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

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

1. 1. On page 12, in line 61, after “ceased” to insert “permanently”.
2. 2. On page 12, in line 64, after “ceased” to insert “permanently”.

Mr. Chairman, the amendments are acceptable.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44:

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

Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated in my reply to the Second Reading debate, I can unfortunately not accept this amendment. I should like shortly to tell the hon. member why not. The hon. member will see in subsection (2) of this clause that provision is made for different dates to be fixed for the coming into operation of different provisions contained in this measure. The idea is to put certain provisions into operation immediately, particularly those relating to the establishment of the board and the registration of travel agents, so that the board can commence with its activities. Other provisions will then be put into operation at later stages. The last to be put into operation will be the prohibition clauses. I cannot foresee that the board would be able to finalize all the preliminary work, as also the registration of travel agents, within 12 months. If we have to have a provision such as is proposed by the hon. member, we will be forced to put all the clauses into operation within 12 months, thereby creating an impossible situation for the board and putting many travel agents, probably the majority, out of business. I want to give the assurance that we are all keen to get the process of registration going and to get it finalized as soon as possible and that time will not be wasted in achieving that. I hope the hon. member will accept that.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation and with the leave of the House withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I would congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the speedy passage of this Bill and say that I hope this will open the way for the development of a tourist industry in South Africa in which the public will be assured that any moneys they deposit with travel agents will be absolutely safeguarded while at the same time the travel agents business will grow into a highly professionalized one to which everyone can turn with trust. In my Second Reading speech I said that the travel agent of the future will have to be a travel and leisure-time consultant and that a code of conduct will have to be devised by the board as quickly as possible in order to ensure that a code laying down the highest standards will be developed by the travel agents for the future. I might say that in the short time that I have been able to examine this particular side of the travel industry, namely the behaviour and the amount of enthusiasm shown by travel agents, I have been amazed at their deep concern for the interests of South Africa, and at the role which they have played towards bringing tourists to South Africa and also enabling South Africans to visit the rest of the world.

As far as I can see Asata is a very fine organization. It has played a very important role in the drafting of this particular Bill. I am glad to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister has granted them all that he said he has.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Bezuidenhout once again and also for the specific contribution which he has just made. I agree with him that we will be looking forward to the code of ethics being applied by the board. That will not only be to the benefit of the industry, but also to the benefit of the travelling public.

*I want to thank hon. members once again for their contributions. I thank the members of the commission as well. I am convinced that the original objective of the Bill which was introduced initially has been achieved with this Bill which was accepted and is before this House this afternoon. This objective was stated in the report of the commission. In this regard I want to quote paragraph 7.3 on page 9 of the report—

1. (a) Die standaard van reisagent-skapsdienste in Suid-Afrika op te hef tot die vlak van professionalisme wat dit verdien;
2. (b) voldoende voorsiening te maak vir die beskerming van die toeris (beide die besoeker aan Suid-Afrika en die Suid-Afrikaner wat in sy eie land of na elders reis) teen moontlike geldelike verliese as gevolg van die doen en late van reisagente; en
3. (c) die beeld van Suid-Afrika as toe-risteland in ons markgebiede in die buiteland te verbeter en om by beide die bedryf en die reisende publiek in die buiteland, wat aan beheer gewoond is, die nodige vertroue in Suid-Afrika en sy toerismebedryf te skep.

I trust that this Bill will have that effect.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.