Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to wish the hon. the Minister well with his new portfolio and on his presentation here of his first Post Office budget.

Let me immediately welcome the birthday present he has given to the Post Office employees by way of the service bonus. We also welcome the replacement of the vacation savings and the 7% contribution to a Civil Pension Stabilization Fund. In addition, we welcome the salary adjustments he proposes to bring them into line with the salaries of other employees and the method outlined for dealing with grievances of the staff.

Let me also say that I think he has taken an interesting line with regard to the growth of the non-White areas by providing R59,1 million for services there and particularly by introducing Operation Two in Soweto to meet the unprecedented demand for some 15 800 telephones.

Moreover, we welcome the fact that he has not today announced any tariff increases. Had he done so, it would of course have been met with the most vociferous opposition from this side of the House for the very reason that his predecessor last year announced a 13% overall increase in tariffs which he said would become effective on 1 October 1979 but which he managed to hold over until 1 February. The hon. the Minister therefore starts off as though he had the increase in tariffs for the coming fiscal year. This should yield approximately R106 million, based purely on last years estimates of revenue. No doubt this figure will be much increased because of the additional 200 000 telephones to be installed this year, the increased use of post office services in general, the projected growth of the economy estimated at between 4% and 5% and the general upsurge in the economy itself.

Last year’s revenue estimates, as announced by the hon. the Minister today, are exceeded by R29,4 million and the expenditure is down by R15,6 million. I must assume, therefore, that the operating surplus of R76 million budgeted for last year is going to be far exceeded. I cannot work out the exact figure from what the hon. the Minister told us in his speech. I shall have to wait for the estimates because he has put the capital and the ordinary expenditure together. Any new tariff increases, however, would only serve to push up the rate of inflation, but with the projected image to which I have referred these increases would be sufficient to see this year through, and perhaps years beyond that, without the hon. the Minister having to exercise his power to alter the tariffs without coming to Parliament. However, we will be asking him in the course of the debate to exercise his power to reduce some of the tariffs.

This budget follows in the wake of the substantial increases announced in the Railway budget, which is estimated to add at least another 1% to the inflation rate. Obviously we are looking forward to the main budget to see how the state of the economy will develop in the light of that budget. Although the new Post Office tariffs do not amount to the 13% announced by the previous Minister, but in fact amount to an average of 37%, I think I must say that the South African public appears to have accepted its fate gracefully for the reasons that, firstly, no increases have been imposed since 1 April 1975, while there have been annual increases in everything else, and, secondly, because the public have confidence in Mr. Rive. We join the hon. the Minister in congratulating Mr. Rive on his efforts in administering this department. This department generally is one of the showpieces of the Government and gives the impression that it is run on fairly sound fines. This does not mean that the postal service can recoup sufficient revenue to meet its expenditure, nor does it mean that the department is beyond criticism or that we will not be moving an amendment to this budget. On the contrary, every facet of its administration will come under close scrutiny of Parliament, and the debate will furthermore cover two additional features.

Firstly, there is the policy of the SABC, including TV, which now falls under the jurisdiction of this hon. Minister, and we will take this opportunity to deal with this policy, any biased reporting and the quality of the programmes. Secondly, the hon. the Minister will be questioned on the provisions of the Post Office Act of 1972 with regard to the interception of mail and telephone calls of members of Parliament and other people. In order to do that, and without underscoring the broad acceptance of this budget, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, allow me at this stage to recap the main reasons why we on this side of the House oppose this measure. First of all, we have said repeatedly that the Government has gone back on the undertakings which it gave to the needy and the poor to the effect that they would continue to have protection by means of rent control. Secondly, we pointed to the magnitude of the problem which is going to result from this measure. Tens of thousands of older people living in older blocks of flats are going to feel insecure and will be facing the threat of eviction. We brought evidence to show that these flats are those which were built in 1936, 1935, 1925 and even earlier. Thirdly, we have pointed out the fact that this will result in a decline in the number of flat units available for renting and a corresponding rise in rentals. Only the other day Property Argus contained an article under the heading “Double rentals for new flats”. The article said inter alia—

Mr. D. F. Kerswill the director of the Cape Peninsula Welfare Organization for the Aged said in this regard—

Unfortunately, the Government seems to be deliberately encouraging a sickening wave of property speculation. Many of these sectional title deals are not done by the older property owners. They are done by a new breed of property speculators who are only intent on buying up, carving up, evicting tenants and getting out with the profits made out of the distress of people and with the co-operation and the callousness of the Government. We have evidence of this and we have laid it before the House.

Finally, we also have evidence of ugly exploitation and harassment of existing tenants. Even before this Bill has been-passed by Parliament, let alone before 1 April 1981 when it becomes effective, older tenants are at this very moment receiving letters from property speculators telling them that the particular property has been sold and warning them that they will be evicted. They are already receiving warnings, and I know the hon. the Minister of Community Development has received letters from tenants asking for an explanation and for assistance.

The hon. the Minister knows that whether the measure becomes effective on 1 April 1981 or not, at the present time people are being told that they have to buy by 15 March or else lose their right to buy. Other people are told that they have to co-operate with the architects who want access to the building otherwise a court order will be sought to have them evicted from their flats. So, while the measure will only become effective on 1 April 1981, already property speculators, encouraged by the Government, are telling people they have an option to buy now or they know that on 1 April next year the sword of Damocles is going to descend on them.

To sum up: The Government has on this occasion left the ordinary person in South Africa, the flat dweller, the older person and the needy person in the lurch. We warned the Government that there was going to be a serious social problem. Not one single hon. member on the other side, and I hope the hon. the Minister will correct this situation, has said what positive steps the Government is going to take to help these people. In the absence of such positive steps we have no option but to say that this is one of the most callous, insensitive and anti-social measures which the Government has introduced as far as the urban dwellers of South Africa are concerned. Therefore we will most certainly vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has dragged on for a long time, by instalments, and I now wish to avail myself of the opportunity of replying briefly. The hon. member for Sea Point used strong language and he must excuse me if I now, contrary to my habit, also use strong language and state that I reject with contempt this charge that the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the Government have gone back on their word to tenants. I will prove that this is untrue. I do not rely on an unfounded charge without any motivation. It appears to me as if there is a certain amount of confusion about the whole question of rent control. Let me begin by setting out briefly what categories of dwellings fall under rent control. The first category consists of dwellings occupied after 20 October 1940 and before 1 January 1955. The second category consists of dwellings occupied before 1 June 1966. They are also subject to rent control, provided the present tenant falls within certain income limits, and provided that he had occupation on the date of the relevant proclamation, namely 26 April 1979. This is in respect of the people earning less than a certain income. As the Act reads at present, sectional title flats fall under the same rent control. The difference is, however, that in the case of houses subject to rent control, the owner may give the occupier three months notice to vacate if he requires the house for his own occupation, whereas an owner of a flat falling under the Sectional Titles Act, cannot do so. These are the three categories.

I repeat that I am by now sick and tired of the continual accusation that the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the Government have gone back on their word. What has actually happened? On 6 April 1978, the hon. the Minister of Community Development issued a statement in which he said, inter alia—

Subject to exceptions.

The hon. member need not make my speech for me; I shall make it myself. Now, in the first place I wish to state—and I do so without fear of contradiction—that in this statement in terms of the Rent Control Act, No. 80 of 1976, the hon. the Minister made no reference at all to the Sectional Titles Act. I do not wish to run away from the Sectional Titles Act, however. There are exceptions, however, and what are these exceptions? The hon. the Minister mentions these in paragraph 2 of his statement. It reads—

In other words, an exception is now being made here and these people are being afforded a measure of protection. But these people do not have total exemption in this regard. These people can also be evicted by the owner of a building after a notice of three months. I am now contending that when the Bill at present before the House becomes law, and becomes effective on 1 April 1981—I am now referring to the relevant section—the total protection which the tenant enjoys, falls away. In other words, he can be evicted by the owner after three months’ notice. I admit that. I notice the hon. member for Sea Point is shaking his head. It seems to me the hon. member does not understand the Act. [Interjections.] The tenant loses the protection he has vis-à-vis the owner, but he immediately falls under the same protection mentioned here by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, that is to say, that if the tenant earns less than a certain income. In other words, a tenant in a sectional title flat loses his total protection. I concede that. But he gets exactly the same protection which the hon. the Minister undertook towards other categories.

That is nonsense. Once he is out, he is out.

The hon. member for Sea Point says this is nonsense. He should rather go and study the Act. I categorically reject the allegation that the hon. the Minister of Community Development has committed a breach of faith.

Now I wish to come to the hon. member for Hillbrow, who did not even let me know that he would not be present when I replied to him.

†In the first instance I want to say, as far as the hon. member’s request for a commission of inquiry is concerned, that this matter was very efficiently investigated by the Fouché Commission approximately three years ago. I am therefore not prepared to entertain the idea of appointing a new commission of inquiry. During the Committee Stage the hon. member spoke, as did other hon. members, of “thousands” of units which would be affected by the Bill. I must admit that it is very difficult to obtain a figure as a complete survey must be made. The hon. member for Durban Point was more realistic when he said the following to his constituents, and I am quoting from a report of his speech which appeared in The Daily News of 21 February 1980—

That is in the Point area.

I wish to refer further to the hon. member for Hillbrow.

+He asked for a statistical bank. This has been established through the Department of Community Development under the guidance of the newly established Co-ordinated Committee on Housing Matters and the Housing Policy Board.

*Then, too, the hon. member dealt with the so-called 10% limit. The department informs me that experience has shown that people introduce few increases above 10%, and when it is pointed out to them that they are doing so, they reduce the amount almost immediately. If exploitation should be proved, rent control could immediately be reapplied. The hon. member also referred to the demand for housing. The department informs me that the Fouché Commission commenced its inquiry in 1975 and produced its report within two years after that date. In 1975 there was an immense demand for housing and, as is the case now, the prices of houses rocketed. The climate in which the recommendations were made, was one which had developed in the same way as the present one, and the recommendations took due account of a financial climate such as the present one. In connection with the demand for housing, the department informs me that for years now, the private sector and the State have been supplying sufficient White housing to meet the demand, namely between 25 000 and 30 000 a year. All demographers of note state that this is sufficient.

†I now want to come to the speech of the hon. member for East London North. He referred to aged people in flats.

He is also not here.

The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs says the hon. member is also not here. The debate has now grown so stale that the hon. members who stated their case with so much fervour, have lost interest. That indicates how little they really care about the plight of the people whose case they are pleading.

You ought to know where the hon. member for Hillbrow is at the moment. He has just taken part in the debate on the Post Office Appropriation.

The hon. member for Hillbrow did not even do me the courtesy of telling me that he would not be available now.

He told me. It is my fault. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for East London North. He spoke about aged people in flats. As has already been stated, we have already built accommodation and also single housing units for elderly people at a cost of R93 million. People affected by this measure can apply to the department. Usually buildings of 25 years and older are affected. They normally do not lend themselves to conversion to sectional title.

The hon. member for Yeoville spoke about the encouragement of the building of new flats. In this respect the department informs me that this matter is being considered by the Housing Co-ordinating Committee specifically brought into being by legislation two years ago to deal with matters like these.

*I think that I have now replied to all unanswered points. By way of summary, I just wish to repeat that the Fouché Commission felt that it was equitable that people who had occupied buildings for 25 years and longer and had been subject to conditions which impeded their right of ownership, should now be placed in the same position as people owning flats and houses which are not subject to sectional title conditions. Is it not fair that this should happen after a certain period? What about the man who buys a farm or a business undertaking? Does one limit them to only a certain interest per year on their properties? After all, we have a free economy. Ultimately one must accommodate this type of investor, too. Is it usually only the rich man who wishes to buy a sectional title flat? Surely, in many cases it is also people from the middle class or from the poorer class who can afford that sort of investment. Finally, before I resume my seat, I state flatly that a representative of the Consumer Council who served on the Fouché Commission, also voted in favour of the repeal of section 39(1). To me, that in itself is sufficient argument that the legislation should be passed.

In conclusion, I just want to say this: Of my own volition, I granted a respite of one year in this respect, which means in effect 15 months for every person affected.

At my request.

The hon. member for Hillbrow withdrew his proposal. I conceded at the outset that he had raised the matter in the first place, but then, he wanted too much. Later on he came forward with another proposal. I agreed that a postponement of a year could be granted. As I say, this will in effect mean a postponement of 15 months. That gives the people who are going to be prejudiced by this, with whom I have a great deal of sympathy, the opportunity to consider their position, to communicate with various organizations, and to seek a solution to their problem. Under these circumstances this is fair, and I therefore request that the Third Reading be approved.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—109: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Barnard, S. P.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heine, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koomhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Olckers, R. de V.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, F. J. le Roux (Hercules), W. L. van der Merwe and P. J. van B. Viljoen.

Noes—28: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The principal aim of the Bill under discussion is to extend the cover afforded in terms of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act (Act No. 56 of 1972) in certain cases. It appears that the measure at present contained in the Act relating to the use of motor vehicles for the purposes of lift clubs in order to conserve fuel, has not had the desired effect, and that a different solution must be found to make the establishment of lift clubs more attractive.

Clause 1 contains a definition of the concept “lift club”.

Provision is made in the legislation for two types of lift clubs. In the first variation, the members take turns to convey one another. The members of the club need not take exactly the same number of turns, as long as they do take turns. Nor need each member of the club be the owner of a motor-car. Examples to illustrate the operation of this type of club are as follows: Four people who work together form a lift club and take turns to convey one another to work in their cars. They can also convey other people, for example each other’s children to school. A member may designate another person, for example his wife, to convey the other members or persons on his behalf, for example to take the children to school. Every vehicle used in the lift club must be insured in terms of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Regulations, 1972, for the purposes of a lift club. The type of insurance prescribed in the regulations, against which objections are currently being advanced, have recently been amended to facilitate the insurance of motor vehicles for the purposes of lift clubs in that the requirement that details of members and vehicles must be provided, is being done away with.

In terms of the second type of lift club, each member of the club must be the owner of a motor vehicle but everyone’s vehicles need not be used for the purposes of the club. As in the first variation, other people, for example members’ children, can also be conveyed or be caused to be conveyed, for example by allowing a spouse to drive the motor-car. Therefore, in this instance all the members do not take turns. They regularly travel with one or more vehicles, but not with all the members’ vehicles. Only the vehicle or vehicles regularly provided for the use of the club need be insured for the purposes of a lift club in terms of the regulations. A practical example is the case of eight people deciding to form a lift club. Seven of them have small motor-cars while the eighth has a Kombi. Accordingly they agree to use only the Kombi for the purposes of the lift club, and then just this one vehicle is insured for this purpose.

I should like to point out that in clause 2, which makes provision for lift clubs, reference is made to conveyance in a “motorcar”. The use of this term is necessary to bring lift clubs into line with the provisions of the Road Transport Act, No. 74 of 1977. Sections 1(2)(h) and (i) of the latter Act, which form part of the exclusions from what comprises road transport, refer to lift clubs. Accordingly “motor-car” is now also being defined in this Bill in clause 1 by way of a reference to the Road Transport Act.

The Act was amended during 1978 to make provision for cover for national service men being given a lift by motorists when proceeding to their destination during their leave in their first period of compulsory military training in prescribed circumstances. This measure, and the requirements that were set, did not have the desired effect because the motorist had, inter alia, to determine whether the person was in fact a national serviceman before he could give him a lift in terms of the legislation and still be covered. In general, motorists are hesitant to question such people about this, with the result that they neither were nor are very willing to give national servicemen a lift. Another problem experienced in regard to the measure is that the compensation which national servicemen may demand in terms of the Act is limited to an amount of R12 000. This meant that the Defence Force had to take out re-insurance for any difference between the real damage and the limitation of R12 000. My information is that the premium payable for this re-insurance is exceptionally high; to tell the truth, it is excessively high.

The Defence Force then made further representations to my department requesting us to abolish the ceiling on the amount which national servicemen claim, and at the same time requested that provision be made in the Act for cover for all members of the Defence Force when being given a lift by motorists. I decided that this request ought to be complied with, and accordingly section 22 is being amended by clause 2 of the Bill to exclude all members of the Defence Force from the limitation imposed by this section so that they will be entitled to the full compensation in terms of section 21 of the Act and so that this will also be applicable to all members of the Defence Force.

You will recall, Sir, that the Wessels Commission of Inquiry into certain aspects of Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance recommended in its report that third party coverage be afforded to all passengers in motor vehicles that cause accidents. Therefore this also applies to the passengers in the motor vehicle driven by the person responsible for the accident. At the time this recommendation was not accepted since at that stage it would have led to an excessive increase in the premium for private motorcars. The matter has now been reconsidered and it is felt that in the light of the favourable financial position of the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund, it is possible to implement the commission’s recommendation on a limited scale, viz. the payment of compensation for the financial loss suffered by a person due to injuries or death arising out of an accident caused by a motor vehicle in which a person was a passenger. Clause 2 also inserts a new provision in this regard into section 22, namely subsection (1)(d), in terms of which the amount of the compensation in these circumstances is limited to R12 000 for loss of income or for maintenance and medical expenses.

Another provision in section 22 which affects the limitation of the amount of compensation for which authorized insurers are liable, is the deletion by means of clause 2 of the amount of altogether R60 000 irrespective of the number of people injured or killed in one incident. It has been found that the limitation of the amount to R60 000 has given rise to a number of practical problems. For example, when there are a substantial number of claimants—they can be passengers on a bus—the claims cannot be disposed of at once and it is necessary to wait until all the claims have been lodged or until the prescription term has expired in order to determine the total liability of authorized insurers. The sharing of the amount of R60 000 can also entail that the compensation granted to claimants comes nowhere near to covering their losses.

Since clause 2(d) now makes provision for cover for passengers in motor vehicles causing accidents, the circumstances in section 23(b)(i) to (iii), in terms of which the liability of authorized insurers is excluded, are no longer applicable. Accordingly, clause 3 deletes these provisions of section 23(b).

However it is necessary that the liability of authorized insurers should still be excluded in certain cases, and clause 3 makes provision for such cases, namely where a person is being conveyed on a motor cycle for reward and where the person being conveyed in a vehicle which caused an accident is a member of the household of the driver of the vehicle.

In the first instance, a person being conveyed on a motor cycle for reward is excluded because conveyance on a motor cycle is not regarded as road transport in terms of the Road Transport Act, 1977. The provision in section 22 relating to transport for reward applies specifically to reward authorized in terms of the Road Transport Act. In the second instance a member of the household of the driver of the vehicle is excluded in order to eliminate fraud and exploitation.

I just want to indicate that I shall move an amendment to this provision during the Committee Stage.

For the reason mentioned, the word “business” used in section 22(1)(a)(ii) is now being defined to make it clear that the conveyance of persons must be in the course of the owner’s lawful business. This definition became necessary due to a ruling in a recent court case that although the owner of the motor vehicle conveyed passengers for illegal reward, it was nevertheless his business to convey persons, and accordingly compensation was granted to the passengers.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. the Minister’s explanation of the various clauses in the Bill with considerable interest. The Bill contains some important amendments to the Act, amendments which in principle have our support. We shall therefore be supporting the Bill at Second Reading.

On the question of lift clubs, it has been apparent for some time that a little more was needed before people could be encouraged to institute lift clubs. It was also obvious that clarity was needed on the definition of a lift club. This Bill gives this clarity. It makes it clear that a club may be formed for the conveyance of, for example, children to school, adult workers to and from work, sports teams to and from sporting occasions and arrangements between firms for reciprocal staff conveyance. As the hon. the Minister has said, the whole concept of lift clubs is a necessity. It is very welcome as a fuel-saving measure, and such clubs also, of course, assist in cutting down congestion on the road. In terms of the legislation before the House, the liability with regard to third-party participants in lift schemes is now defined. The Bill also provides for limited liability for non-fare-paying passengers who were not previously covered under the Act. Particularly welcome is the provision which the hon. the Minister announced which provides for unlimited liability in respect of national servicemen going on authorized leave or returning to base after leave whether they are doing their original term of service or subsequent spells of duty. I presume the hon. the Minister does not mean to cover people going on unauthorized leave. I notice the word …

I do not have the AWOL cases in mind.

An added deterrent to going AWOL has now been included in the legislation. Servicemen who frequently have to rely on lifts from persons who are unknown to them are, I believe, entitled to the protection, not only for such journeys, but at any time they are leaving camp or returning to camp.

The decision to eliminate the limit of the liability of an aggregate of R60 000 in respect of any bodily injury or the death of any person, is also very desirable indeed, both because of the inflationary situation, which has been very much part and parcel of our fives since the sum was originally set, and because in terms of the definition of a motor-car which has now been included, up to nine people could be involved in an accident and an overall limit of R60 000 would be totally inadequate to cover serious injury or death to nine people. I am actually of the opinion that this does not go far enough and that a limit of R12 000 compensation in respect of any one person is too low, and I will therefore move an amendment in the Committee Stage suggesting that a higher limit be put because this limit could prove to be completely inadequate in the case of a serious accident. The hon. the Minister is probably aware of some of the awards made by courts recently. It has gone up to as much as R50 000. I note that the Act is to be extended to cover a new group of payments, and consequently there are now possibilities for further claims which were not previously serviced by authorized insurers. This will now involve additional work for those insurers, and presumably the hon. the Minister will make arrangements that these insurers will be suitably remunerated for the increased administration costs. This is a point the hon. the Minister will probably discuss in his reply.

In clause 3 the cases where liability is excluded have been redefined. I have no quarrel with pillion passengers on motor-cycles as this should certainly not be included, but I believe that the reasons advanced for excluding members of the driver’s household are not entirely convincing. There is considerable confusion as to just who falls into the category of belonging to a driver’s household.

I will clarify that during the Committee Stage.

I in turn will move for the deletion of this because I think the arguments for its deletion are stronger than the arguments for its retention.

The amendments sought to be brought about by this Bill relate to an Act which is not renowned for the quality of its legal draftsmanship. The legislation of 1978 which amended the principal Act has in particular been heavily criticized from the Bench and by members of the legal fraternity. I regret to say that I believe that the draftmanship of the Bill before the House is not ideal either, and I will be moving various technical amendments during the Committee Stage which I hope will be acceptable to the hon. the Minister, although I am not so sure of that. But I believe that they will improve the Bill before the House. Perhaps I should add that I believe it is high time that the whole Act was redrafted in the light of the criticism that has been made. Criticism has appeared in legal journals and criticism has been levelled by various legal experts because uncertainties undoubtedly exist in the Act, and I believe that they should be looked at.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for having supported this legislation in principle on behalf of his party. In its report the Wessels Commission pointed out that by way of legislation, the State obliged all owners of motor vehicles to take out insurance, and that innocent third-party victims are compensated. The State therefore has to see to it that the cost structure of the third-party insurance is kept as low as possible. This task the State has complied with in full, and it is with profound gratitude that one takes cognizance of the fact that the tariffs for third-party insurance have been reduced substantially in spite of the fact that provision is now being made in this legislation for an extension of the cover afforded under third-party insurance, and particularly if one takes into account the extremely high accident rate on our roads, as the hon. the Minister pointed out in a previous speech, and the fact that the amounts paid out in respect of accidents has been substantially higher under present circumstances than in the past. I think that in this regard we all owe the department a debt of thanks for the way in which this matter has been dealt with.

However, there is one aspect which still gives rise to concern and that is the heavy legal fees involved in the settlement of claims. According to the latest departmental report, the legal fees in respect of an amount of R41,6 million paid out in claims by the authorized insurers, amounted to R8,6 million, viz. rather more than 20% of the amount paid. This is a substantial expense which is entailed by claims against the fund and which perhaps requires urgent attention. But it has another effect, too, viz. that many people are not in a position to guarantee these legal fees in the first place, and that as a result, in cases where people would have been entitled to compensation from the fund, they do not press the claim and consequently many deserving cases never reach the courts.

I want to confine myself for the most part to clause 2(d) of the Bill, and convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for the fact that provision is now being made for full compensation to be paid to national servicemen in the case of an accident. In the past many people have refused to give national servicemen lifts because they were not in a position to pay the expenses in the case of an accident and as a result might be the cause of such a national serviceman not obtaining the necessary medical treatment to which he was entitled. However, it is still a fact that we lose far fewer soldiers in the operational area than on our roads, and perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me just to pay a personal tribute in this particular connection to a young man in my constituency who had to sacrifice his life on the border in the past week and also to convey my sympathy to his family. In my constituency there was a lady who approached the commanding officer and pleaded that her only son should not be sent on border duty. His reply to her was as follows: “Madam, as long as your son is in our hands we shall do everything to ensure his safety, and when he returns I ask the same of you.” He returned from border duty and subsequently went to Durban on vacation. However, on the way there he was involved in a motor accident, and never came back. If only motorists were as well-trained for their task as our soldiers are trained for their task, then I think the legislation would have been still easier to administer.

Although I know that their circumstances may be entirely different, I do think that our police also perform an exceptional service, particularly in the operational area, but elsewhere as well, and that basically there is really very little difference between the work they do and that of the Defence Force. It may be true that other circumstances apply to them, but I feel nevertheless that it would perhaps be a good gesture to include them under the legislation as well.

Who do you want included?

The police, because they also perform border duty, although on a different basis; they are not there as servicemen. Perhaps other arrangements are made for them and there may be good reasons why they are excluded. Nevertheless I think that it would be an appropriate gesture in gratitude for their service.

Since these concessions are being made, I think it is necessary to tell the public repeatedly that third party insurance is not life or accident insurance. In the case of a claim against a third party, negligence on the part of the driver has to be proved. However, that is not so easy. I therefore ask that servicemen should not regard this concession as an encouragement to get into the car of any strange motorist and then think that if an accident happens they will be compensated in any event. I believe that the aim of the legislation is more to afford responsible drivers the opportunity to give these men a lift when their services are really required. In the course of their training the Defence Force looks after the safety of our national servicemen; I think it is our task to see to that same safety on the roads. I thank you, Sir, and I wholeheartedly support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain degree of pleasure that I rise on behalf of my party to tell the hon. the Minister that we shall support him with the Bill. I say “wity pleasure” because in examining the Bill I see there are two motivating forces behind it. The one is to encourage people to save fuel and the second one is to encourage people to assist our servicemen.

In regard to the first motivation I think it is something which every South African today should be doing. We should do all in our power to save fuel. By now bringing lift clubs to be covered by the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, we are giving these people the assurance that they are covered in the event of an accident.

When my colleague and I first looked at the Bill one or two queries came to mind. The first one concerns the question “who is an owner of a motor vehicle?” While it is clearly defined in the Act, I think one should state it here that a person who has a hire-purchase agreement or leases a motor vehicle is covered under the Act in terms of the definition of an “owner”. I think it is worth mentioning that because some people were not quite aware of this.

The other query which arises, is whether a person who drives a company car and is not the owner of that vehicle, is now covered in terms of this amending legislation in terms of how it covers lift clubs. I should just like to point out that provision is made for two types of lift clubs, viz. A and B. In respect of the A type it is not required that the person is an owner, and therefore an employee who uses a company car is covered by the provision in respect of type A. The second type involves ownership. In this case people who own, or who hire or lease vehicles, are in fact covered. I thought I would just mention this as I think the public might have queries in respect of the hiring or leasing of vehicles.

As far as the servicemen are concerned, I think this is a very good move. When my wife, my daughter and I are driving along a highway, my daughter always encourages me to give lifts to servicemen. [Interjections.] She might have her own motivation for doing that. But my wife also does it. [Interjections.] That may be the attitude of the females of my family, but I should just like to add that I too do it. I believe that South Africans should help our servicemen.

Are you talking about the lady members of the Force? [Interjections.]

Regrettably we do not see too many of the lady members of the Force hitch-hiking along the highways.

You must go down to George.

I do believe that we should encourage motorists to assist servicemen by offering them lifts. As the hon. member for Losberg has said, these men are doing their duty in the service of South Africa and for us, and therefore I think it is only right that we in turn should in a small way repay them for the sacrifices they are making at the present time. I would like to say that, like the hon. member for Orange Grove, I do to some extent question the amount of coverage of R12 000. I am fully aware that the amount of coverage definitely has implications as far as the premium is concerned. The more coverage one enjoys, the more premiums one has to pay.

As far as servicemen are concerned, that limit is now being removed.

I was referring to the overall limit. Maybe the hon. the Minister can elaborate on that aspect when he replies to the debate.

With these few words we shall, as I have said at the beginning, support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the support of this Bill by hon. speakers. However, I just want to dwell for a moment on the speech by the hon. member for Losberg. In my opinion he made a very fruitful contribution to this debate. The same applies to the hon. members for Amanzimtoti and Orange Grove. It is true that this Bill states one important fact—other hon. members also referred to this—and that is that the existing measures relating to lift clubs have not been quite as successful as we should have liked, particularly if it is borne in mind that the aim of these lift clubs is specifically to save fuel. The saving of fuel that was originally envisaged is not occurring and therefore it is gratifying that this Bill does away with a lot of red tape surrounding the establishment of lift clubs. I wish to refer to one or two of these. For example, when people apply to insure their vehicles for the purposes of lift clubs, the names and addresses of the members of the lift club have to be provided as well as the registration numbers of the vehicles. They must also give notice of changes in the composition of the club. This red tape is now being removed entirely. The only requirement which will still apply is that after these amendments have been accepted, members of lift clubs will have to insure their cars for this purpose and will have to provide the names of all their members to their insurers.

The Opec countries maintain that the world consumption of fuel from petroleum will only drop significantly once the price of fuel has reached a rand per litre. In view of the steadily dwindling supply of fuel and rising costs, the unrestricted use of private motor-cars is becoming a luxury which will have to be a rarity in the years that lie ahead. In contrast, the use of commercial vehicles over the next two decades will increase almost ten-fold. Already consideration is being given to buses that can convey up to 160 passengers at a time. These facts underline the importance of lift clubs and the urgent need for a growing number of lift clubs. It is alarming to see the vast number of motor-cars that travel from the suburbs to the centre city every morning with one or two, or sometimes three, occupants. To see four or five occupants of a car is really something out of the ordinary. We complain about the high cost of living and say that we cannot come out on our income, but it is a case of, as Till Eulenspiegel said: “They are asking for it.”

Provision is made in the Bill for two types of lift clubs. In the first instance, members take turns to convey one another or other persons on one another’s behalf. The requirement is that members of the club should take turns, although each member need not necessarily be the owner of a motor-car. The members of the club need not convey one another only but can convey anyone designated by members of the club, for example children who have to be taken to school. Other hon. members have already referred to this.

A member of a club can also designate another person to convey other members or other persons on his behalf. The second type of lift club for which provision is being made, is the case where every member must be the owner of a motor-car, but not every member’s vehicle is necessarily used for the club. In this instance, therefore, the members do not take turns. They usually travel in one or more vehicles, but not necessarily with the vehicles of all the members. I think that these amendments will contribute substantially towards an increase in the number of lift clubs. In my opinion the most important consequence of this will be that there will be a substantial saving in fuel, as was the original intention with regard to the lift clubs. Accordingly this side of the House supports this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kimberley South has dealt with various aspects and from what he said it is obvious there is general acceptance of this particular measure. The hon. member also spoke in terms of encouraging public transport, and I would like to support him in that plea. In fact, we should go out of our way to encourage people to use public transport and if necessary the hon. the Minister must think in terms of concessions to people who supply public transport. We are giving certain concessions, but in other countries even greater concessions are given. Of course this will help the hon. the Minister with his fuel saving, which we desperately need to do in South Africa.

Actually I was not going to talk in this debate, but the hon. member for Losberg drew me into it when he referred to legal costs. He said that because of the high legal costs many people cannot proceed with their actions. I readily concede to the hon. member for Losberg that the legal costs are very high. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Losberg, however, that there is also the other side of the coin. I should like to point out a few factors to him. Firstly, before the MVA Fund pays out legal costs they must either be taxed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, or alternatively, they must be recommended by an experienced attorney who would be acting as the attorney for the Fund in the particular case. Secondly, the people administering the Fund know from past experience approximately what the costs should be in a particular case. They are therefore able to assess the costs and the reasonability of such costs in particular cases. In other words, the costs are not just arbitrarily calculated. People actually have to earn the costs they are paid in particular cases.

The biggest problem arises however, as was mentioned, because certain people cannot afford to be plaintiffs in an action. They cannot afford to institute legal proceedings owing to a lack of finance. If I may, I should like to deal with that point. As the hon. the Minister knows, there is a system of legal aid in this country. In terms of that system, if a plaintiff does not have sufficient funds, in terms of legal aid an attorney will be appointed to act on behalf of that particular plaintiff. In that particular case legal aid makes provision for the payment of the costs involved, which means that the plaintiff does not have to bear those costs. It may well be that one has to increase the limits of the legal aid, but I should like to point out to the hon. member for Losberg that it cannot be categorically stated that people cannot institute legal proceedings owing to a lack of financial means. To make such a statement is incorrect because there is a legal aid system in South Africa.

This legislation will make it easier for lift clubs to operate. In view of this fact it will result in substantial savings of fuel. Lift clubs for conveyance of children or others form a very important and integral part of our transport system. Any measure that gives better recognition to lift clubs is therefore to be welcomed. We also welcome the better deal for military trainees in terms of this measure, and we are pleased that the MVA Fund, in general, is in such a healthy state as to enable the hon. the Minister to make the necessary concessions now. In the circumstances we shall support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank hon. members for their support, in principle, of the measures contained in this Bill.

The hon. member for Orange Grove stated—and I agree with him on that—that this measure could better be discussed during the Committee Stage. I must say, however, that I agree with his observations in connection with the necessity of redrafting this Bill in toto. Therefore I want to give an undertaking that during the recess I shall ask the department to do so. That will enable me to introduce a revised Bill during next year’s session of Parliament.

When one looks at the history of this type of insurance, it is very interesting to note that in 1964 there was an application by insurance companies to increase their premiums by some 20%. The then Minister of Transport refused that application, as a result of which a consortium was formed. Between 1964 and 1975 there was no increase in such insurance premiums. If my memory serves me correctly premiums were increased, in 1975, by some 28%. Premiums were, however, reduced again in May 1979, with a further reduction at the beginning of this year. It was possible, for various reasons, to reduce premiums this year. Before mentioning some of these reasons, however, I should like to tell the hon. member for Losberg that the premiums paid by private motor vehicle owners are now the same as in 1964, a fact which confirms that we are still trying to ensure that the premiums are kept as low as possible. It is, in fact, true that third party insurance premiums are probably the lowest of any short-term cover one can get anywhere else. The financial statements and accounts of the Fund will indicate that after provision had been made for outstanding claims amounting to some R186 million, the Fund still had a surplus amounting to some R71 million. I therefore believe that the owners of motor vehicles are entitled to receive the benefit of this in two ways: firstly, through a reduction in the premiums, which I have already announced and, secondly, by the extension of the cover afforded in terms of the Act. I think that the reasons for the healthy state of affairs prevailing in the Fund are very important. This is due to the measures introduced to conserve fuel, and I agree with all the hon. members about this, including the hon. member for Kimberley South. I think that we in this country have been very successful with the saving of fuel. Let me give hon. members the facts. The volume of oil imported during 1979 was more or less the same as the volume imported in 1972, the year immediately preceding the oil crisis of 1973, whilst over the same period the number of motor vehicles, the motor vehicle population of this country, increased by more than 45% or 50%. I think this is evidence of the fact that there has been a considerable saving in the use of oil. I also believe that the compulsory introduction of seat belts is another factor. I believe that the tariff increase of 28% in 1975 is a third factor and that the considerable amount of interest earned on investments is a fourth. In fact, the interest we earned is equal to about 50% of the total annual income of the Fund. The last factor I want to mention is, I submit, an important one. We are in this favourable position notwithstanding the fact that the claims against the Fund increased from R32 million in 1974 to R55 million in 1979.

*So I believe we have done good business in this particular regard. The hon. member for Losberg referred to the question of premiums. It seems to me that we have already complied with his request. Furthermore, it would also be possible to further extend the cover for which provision is being made in the Act, as I am now proposing. He also referred to the question of including the police. This is not a matter which has been submitted to us, but I promise to investigate this particular matter as well. We shall not be able to do so now, however, because I do not know exactly what it would entail.

Two hon. members referred to the limit of R12 000 as the maximum permitted for a claim in respect of persons in the vehicle which caused the accident, with the exception of members of the driver’s household. Hon. members must understand that we have not had any claims in this regard yet. Therefore it would only be realistic for us to wait and learn from experience what the amounts ought to be. Consequently I would advise that we retain the limit of R12 000. However, if we learn from experience that the position of the Fund is strong and that the claims will not be such that we shall have to increase the premiums again at a later stage, I shall consider a possible increase in the maximum limit of the claim. I consider this a fair request and I should be gratified if hon. members would agree with me in this regard.

I agree with the hon. member for Kimberley South that it was, and still is, necessary for us to save fuel. In this respect there have been restrictive measures in the existing arrangements as regards lift clubs. This was in respect of the Act itself but was also in respect of the regulations which made provision for the registration of members of the clubs. This led to a lot of red tape.

I thank hon. members for their support in this regard. The hon. member for Walmer replied to the question of the hon. member for Losberg as a lawyer. Naturally I am unable to do so. The hon. member has a far more material interest in the fees of lawyers than I have.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause1:

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of amendments to this clause which I believe would help to make the intention of the clause very much clearer, avoid ambiguities that do exist and certainly improve the legislation. I therefore move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 3, in lines 7 to 9, to omit paragraph (a);
2. (2) on page 3, in line 12, to omit the second “club” and to substitute “association of persons”;
3. (3) on page 3, in line 13, to omit “gets a turn” and to substitute “is obliged in turn”;
4. (4) on page 3, in lines 16 and 17, to omit “a specific place” and to substitute “specific places”;
5. (5) on page 3, in line 18, to omit “owner” and to substitute “user”;
6. (6) on page 3, in line 20, to omit “owner” and to substitute “user”;
7. (7) on page 3, in line 21, to omit “owners” and to substitute “users”;
8. (8) on page 3, in line 24, to omit “a specific place” and to substitute “specific places”.

As regards the first amendment, i.e. to omit para, (a), let me say that para, (a) serves to insert in the definitions the definition “‘business’ does not include any unlawful business”. I can see the motivation for the inclusion of this. One does not want to encourage people to make money out of fraud. I think this was the hon. the Minister’s justification for this in his speech.

No, that does not relate to this particular issue.

Well, it is part of the reason for the inclusion of the definition of “unlawful business”. The effect of this is, however, to exclude claims arising out of death or injury to any person whilst travelling in a vehicle being used unlawfully. When one thinks of vehicles being used unlawfully, one must think of contraventions of the Roads Transportation Act and specifically of pirate taxis and of trucks and bakkies used to convey labour gangs without the person responsible having a permit to do so. These are unlawful usages of vehicles like that. A potential, innocent passenger wishing to ride in a taxi or the member of a labour gang does not necessarily have prior knowledge of whether the vehicle in which he is about to travel is lawfully operated. He travels at his own peril in that he would not be indemnified if he is injured or killed when the vehicle is operated unlawfully. I believe this places an unfair onus on the individual who might want to catch a taxi or on the employee who might be being transported by his employer. On that basis I weighed the pros and cons and felt that my amendment was necessary.

Sir, in view of the fact that I am allowed to speak only three times on this clause, I shall motivate all my amendments now and then ask the hon. the Minister to react. As regards my second amendment, it is my contention that one cannot use the word “club” in the definition of “lift club” unless one means that the club exists for other purposes already. It may for instance be a sports club. I should like the hon. the Minister to look again at the clause and to read it very carefully. I think he might then agree with me. Even if he does not, I think it gives greater clarity that anybody can form such a club if one uses the phrase I suggest, namely “association of persons”. I may point out that this particular phrase, “association of persons”, was the phrase used in Regulation R152 of 27 January 1978 in the definition of “lift club”. I think it is better than the definition as it stands in the Bill and I would ask the hon. the Minister to accept that amendment.

Turning to my third amendment, I am sure the hon. the Minister will admit that “every member gets a turn” is an ugly colloquialism. It suggests, too, that there is a fixed roster. The hon. the Minister did say in his Second Reading speech that he did not mean that there should be any necessity for a fixed roster, but I do believe that the wording of the Bill before us suggests that there would be a fixed roster. On that basis I suggest that the words I propose should be used, viz. “is obliged at times arranged”, would be an improvement. The provision would then read—

I think the hon. the Minister must admit that there will be greater clarity if that phrase is used. However, the hon. the Minister is not looking very encouragingly at me.

The fourth amendment I have moved relates to page 3, lines 16 and 17, of the Bill. I have moved that the words “a specific place” be substituted by the words “specific places”. As the Bill reads at the moment, it means that a lift club decides that they are going to operate to a specific place, but I would draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that lift clubs do not always go to a specific place. In the case of a lift club for schoolchildren, for example, one may find that some of them are boys and some of them are girls and that they go to schools in the neighbourhood, but not necessarily all to a specific place. If one uses the words “specific places”, that would cover those particular schools. Let me cite as another example the case of a sports team which is being transported. If one is saying that that sports team is going to a specific place, then it means they are always going to one school, but sports teams, of course, do not always go to the same place as they go to various schools. Again, my amendment would mean that it would cover a lift club who wanted to convey a sports team to other schools. One also thinks of adults going to work. They might be dropped off at different places along the way, which I think should be perfectly permissible, but if one restricts this to a specific place then one will be out of court as far as this Bill is concerned. Again I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that, if he is reasonable, this is the amendment which he must accept, if he is going to accept any at all.

I have moved my fifth amendment for one good reason. As the Bill is worded at the moment, somebody who is not necessarily doing the transporting himself, but is being transported or is having his children transported, has to be the owner of a car. Here we have a case of the MV A getting its pound of flesh. It is insisting that everybody should own a car. I would, however, suggest that there are situations where people use cars of which they are not necessarily the owners. The definitions of course include a car purchased on HP so that there is no problem about that, but in many instances people operate firm-owned cars, of which they themselves are therefore not the owners.

They can do this under subsection (1)(a).

They could, but that concerns a very limited number of people. I refer to those people who are not doing the driving themselves and are not taking their turns, but who are designated by the members of the lift club. If we follow that argument through there would be no need for that paragraph at all. If one is logical one has to accept that there are a specific category of people envisaged in this paragraph who will not be able to use their cars because they do not own cars but use their firm’s cars and who will therefore be excluded. I admit that there are not very many of them.

The remaining three amendments which I have moved to this clause are consequential to the earlier amendments.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to explain to the hon. member what the position is, and I am now talking about passengers in a vehicle that causes the accident; not the third party, but the actual passengers. At present cover is provided for passengers who are conveyed for reward in an insured vehicle or in the course of the business of the owner or in the course of their employment as servants of the owner or as the driver of the insured motor vehicle in the event of the driver of that vehicle negligently causing an accident. The reason for the amendment is to be found in a judgement of the court.

*I can give the hon. member the information in this particular connection, although I shall not find it easy to pronounce the names. It arises from a ruling in the case of Santam Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tshiva, Max-anti v. Protea Assurance Co. Ltd. It is to the effect that passengers conveyed in a pirate taxi—that is an illegal taxi—who were therefore not conveyed legally for reward, were nevertheless conveyed in the course of the business of the owner of the vehicle as operator of pirate taxis, even though illegally. The hon. member will therefore concede to me that it was never the intention to provide cover for passengers conveyed in a pirate taxi. What the legislation had in mind was legal transportation, as defined in the Road Transportation Act. The provision which legalizes transportation for reward in terms of the provisions of the Road Transportation Act is now being circumvented, therefore, by presenting the matter in the guise of a business enterprise. The hon. member will understand, therefore, and the hon. member for Kimberley South also referred to this, that we have to encourage public transport and not undermine it through the illegal operation of pirate taxis. With great respect, we are also responsible for the safety of the people who are being conveyed as well as the people who operate public transport. If these are legal business enterprises, certain provisions are laid down, for example, that the driver has to have a public driving permit. There are a great many of them, and therefore I believe we would be making a great mistake if we argued that we wanted to regard illegal taxis as legal operators for the purposes of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act.

As far as the injured passenger is concerned, however, he will henceforth be able to claim up to R12 000 for medical expenses and loss of income, and he will also be able to recover the balance of his damages from the driver concerned in terms of common law. I hope the hon. member is following me. He says that an innocent person may use a pirate taxi. He does not know that it is illegal. Then he is not covered. But he is covered. He just does not have unlimited cover. He is covered for up to R12 000 in terms of the other provision. Therefore he is not without cover. I ask the hon. member to agree with me in this connection, otherwise we should really be authorizing a malpractice in terms of the Act, a practice which naturally wants to destroy the Road Transportation Act. I should really be glad if the hon. member would concede this to me as well.

†I now wish to refer to the hon. member’s second amendment. The second amendment is to delete the word “club” and to substitute “associations of persons”.

*A club is a club, no matter what one calls it. I have been able to study the amendment moved by the hon. member and I have also discussed it with the law advisers. This amendment is actually unnecessary. Its wording serves precisely the same purpose as the present wording. The law advisors agree with this. In other words, we should not really be achieving anything by accepting it.

†The following amendment is on page 3, line 13, to delete “gets a turn” and to substitute “is obliged and at times arranged”. I have discussed this with the department, and the hon. member will understand that I must be led by them to a large extent. The department says that the proposed wording is more restrictive than the existing provision because it creates the impression that there must be a scheduled basis on which it must be organized. What I am trying to do is to avoid restrictive interpretations. Therefore, whilst I appreciate the good intentions of the hon. member, I ask him please to accept the explanation in this particular regard. I have explained during my Second Reading speech that members of a club need not have the same number of turns. I therefore suggest that we should rather use the terminology that is less restrictive than the proposal put forward by the hon. member.

In his fourth amendment the hon. member seeks to delete the words “a specific place”. Those words he wants to be substituted with “specific places”. The argument is sound—I accept the argument—but the legal conclusion is wrong. In terms of the Interpretation Act, 1957, the singular includes the plural. The hon. member for Groote Schuur would probably agree with me there. Therefore all the other amendments relating to the same subject also fall away because they are unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, I obtained a bit of legal advice on particularly the last remarks of the hon. the Minister. If in every instance in our law the singular includes the plural I shall be very surprised. I am not going to argue with the hon. the Minister on that, but I shall stick to my point of view. I am absolutely certain that one cannot say that in every instance in our law the singular includes the plural.

Unless it is excluded.

The hon. the Minister says “unless it is excluded” but I do not necessarily agree with him even on that.

But that is what the Act says; one cannot argue with the Act.

The hon. the Minister says “That is what the Act says”, but I am not so sure that it is so.

With regard to my first amendment, the hon. the Minister did not actually answer the point in connection with the onus that is now being placed on an innocent person to make sure that the taxi he is climbing into is not a pirate taxi. That, perhaps, would not be unreasonable if there were signs on taxis to make it absolutely easy for taxi users to make sure whether such taxis are lawful or not. One cannot expect the user to check the licence papers, to have a look at the sort of licence and so forth. I think it is an unfair onus. I accept every bit of the argument of the hon. the Minister because it is true, but weighed up against the possibility of making the onus too great, I believe that this amendment was necessary and I should like to stick to it. Specifically in relation to employees who are illegally transported by their employers, it so often happens that a labour gang in the building industry climb into a combi and are transported somewhere. They are not really in a position to know whether that employer has a road transportation permit or not. I think it is a little tough on them to expect them to find out from their boss whether or not he has a road transportation permit.

I admit that they have recourse in that they can sue the owner, whoever he may be, or whoever is the guilty party in an accident, but I do believe that in view of the state of the Fund at the moment the hon. the Minister ought to stretch the provision a little bit to make sure that that sort of person is protected. I should like to say that there might be another way out. Admittedly I am talking about the lesser of two evils when I suggest this amendment because I can see both sides of the question. The hon. the Minister must accept, however, that he is still left with the problem of these innocent users who might be unfairly and unjustly penalized.

On the question of my second amendment, which deals with the association of persons as opposed to clubs, I should like the hon. the Minister to look at it very carefully. As I say I used the phrase that actually comes from the hon. the Minister’s own Regulation No. R152. I think it is better because there is absolute clarity that a lift club can exist as an association of persons and does not have to be an existing club which is devoted to some other cause. It can be a lift club on its own, an association of persons who form a lift club for that purpose and that purpose only.

On the phrase which I described as an ugly colloquialism, viz. “every member gets a turn”, I stick to my viewpoint that it is an ugly colloquialism. I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s point on the question of restriction and I was just wondering—I shall wait with this amendment if he is not prepared to accept it—whether we could come to a compromise on this. Could we say that every member is “obliged in turn” to convey or caused to be conveyed?

[Inaudible.]

It is restrictive, but is in fact not quite the colloquialism of the original clause. I think the hon. the Minister’s objection hinges on the use of the word “turn”, which is restricting in itself.

The word “obliged”.

The Bill as it stands does not contain the word “obliged”. It stipulates that every member gets a turn. If it stipulates that every member is obliged in turn to convey or cause to be conveyed, we are at least not being colloquial, but properly grammatical. We shall then not be dealing with phraseology which really should not belong in a Bill of this nature. I therefore want to stick to that one. I think I have already dealt with the hon. the Minister’s answer in regard to specific places rather than one specific place. I bow to his viewpoint, but I stick to my viewpoint that in fact it does not necessarily work that way.

Mr. Chairman, I shall try again. I understand the hon. member’s argument about colloquialism. However, will he be satisfied if I, before I deal with it in the Other Place, see whether I can replace the words to which he has objected with words more acceptable to him? I just want to reiterate that I do not want to introduce restrictive concepts into the Bill. If he will accept that, I shall try to find other words.

He has talked about the onus resting on the passenger who is using an illegal taxi or who is being transported by somebody in the course of business. I have indicated that in terms of the amendment contained in clause 2, which amends section 22, that passenger can claim up to an amount of R12 000 if the driver of the vehicle in which he was a passenger was negligent.

Does that mean that the two clauses …

That is right. He can claim that amount, and therefore I think the argument of the hon. member falls away. I want to ask him to accept my explanation, because the cover is available, irrespective. However, I concede that the cover is now limited to R12 000 and also financial loss in respect of earnings and also medical expenses. The position is that as the clause is now framed, we are attaining what the hon. member wishes to attain.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the hon. the Minister’s undertaking in respect of my third amendment, relating to the question of the wording, I am quite prepared to accept that he will find something a little bit more acceptable. I am sure it will not be too difficult, and on that basis I Should like to withdraw my third amendment.

As far as my first amendment is concerned, my only comment on the fact that persons can claim up to R12 000 is that people like pirate taxi owners tend to be men of straw. If there is a case of death or serious injury, an amount of up to R12 000 can be claimed, but this amount does not go very far in these days. Furthermore the sort of person who would be operating unlawfully, is usually the sort of man who is unsueable. One cannot get anything out of him. However, I do accept the hon. the Minister’s comment that they would be able to receive anything up to R12 000 on the basis of their being passengers in terms of the proposed section 22. Apart from my third amendment, I should like my other amendments to remain. I think I understand the hon. the Minister’s position a little better. I can only hope that when this Bill is redrafted in toto during the recess in terms of the hon. the Minister’s assurance, a little more consideration will be given to the points I have raised.

Amendment (3), with leave, withdrawn.

Amendments (1) and (2) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (4) negatived and amendment (8) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (5) negatived and amendments (6) and (7) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to move an adjustment to the upper limit of R12 000, which I did not believe was adequate, but in view of the hon. the Minister’s comments in his reply during the Second Reading debate I am quite prepared, at this stage, not to move my amendment on the basis that the hon. the Minister is going to look at the position of the Fund after a period of time.

I thank the hon. member for Orange Grove.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I am a little perplexed by the whole question of a member of the driver’s household.

Will the hon. member give me a chance to move my amendment?

Yes, by all means. Sorry, I was not aware of it.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove that this definition, as it stands, is vague, because there is no judicial definition for a member of the household. Where does the household begin and where does it end? I therefore move the following amendment—

to insert:

Mr. Chairman, I am looking at the amendment which has just been moved. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this amendment would preclude, for example, a chauffeur employed by somebody being regarded as a member of the household?

Yes.

On that basis I am not going to move my amendment. I shall accept the hon. the Minister’s amendment. I am much happier than I thought I would be.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to consider briefly the basic aspects raised in this Bill. The first is the suspension of sentences imposed in departmental disciplinary trials.

Up to and including February 1979, trial officers from the Department of Prisons have imposed suspended sentences in departmental disciplinary trials, on the ground that departmental courts were defined by the old Criminal Procedure Act (Act 56 of 1955) as inferior courts, and were therefore competent to suspend sentences.

However, under the new Criminal Procedure Act (Act 51 of 1977), the courts in question are no longer defined as inferior courts, and the power to suspend sentences therefore falls away. The view is held that the suspension of sentences has a beneficial effect. A member or a prisoner who has committed an offence may be motivated by a suspended sentence to refrain from committing further offences. On the strength of this deterrent value, statutory provision is now being made for the suspension of certain sentences.

The second aspect I wish to refer to, is the establishment, functions and duties of institutional committees and release boards. It has become necessary to change the concept “prison boards” to “release boards”, which is more indicative of the functions henceforth to be performed by the boards concerned, and at the same time to establish institutional committees, and to define their functions in order to distinguish them from release boards. Institutional committees will consist of those members who are actively concerned with the treatment of the prisoner, while release boards will make recommendations on the release of prisoners, based on observations made by judicial officers at the time of the imposition of the sentence, as well as on information concerning the behaviour, training, aptitude, diligence, health and criminal prognosis of a prisoner, to be supplied by the institutional committees.

The development of the treatment and training of prisoners, especially during the last two decades, is common knowledge, and for this reason it has now become necessary to create a more effective co-ordinating body for this purpose. Institutional committees therefore seek to implement in a meaningful and real way the objectives of the Department of Prisons, as embodied in section 2(2)(b) of the Prisons Act. Release boards, on the other hand, are now being freed from all those tasks relating to the treatment of a prisoner that the existing prison boards, on account of the magnitude of this task, were no longer able to cope with properly. On the other hand, owing to the reports that have to be submitted by institutional committees, release boards will be in a better position to consider the release of prisoners. It will be possible to utilize existing staff in a more meaningful and optimal way, and employ them on a co-ordinated basis in the treatment and release of prisoners.

This brings me to the third aspect, viz. the release of prisoners. At present I am authorized to release on parole prisoners who have been declared habitual criminals. In the case of release on probation, however, the approval of the State President has to be obtained, which consequently imposes an unnecessary work load on the State President. Therefore, in order to bring about considerable administrative relief and the curtailment of the release process, it is being deemed necessary to enable me to release such prisoners on probation as well. From section 62 of the Prisons Act the sections authorizing the release of prisoners follow in chronological order, except in the case of sections 67 and 68. The latter two sections essentially make provision for the same thing, except that one deals with prisoners released on probation while the other deals with prisoners released on parole. In practice the regrouping of these provisions would be far more meaningful and would set out the relevant principles far more clearly. The sections concerned are being amended in such a way that one makes provision for release on probation or parole and the other for the withdrawal of probation or parole or for the alteration of the conditions under which the prisoner was released on probation or parole.

Mr. Speaker, we shall be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. We have examined it—with suspicious eyes, of course—and do not find anything really objectionable in the Bill. In fact, if anything it is an improvement on the existing system of parole. I would say, moreover, that anything that can in any way diminish the extraordinary number of people we keep behind bars in South Africa is something that should be supported in this country. South Africa has the largest daily average number of prisoners pro rata, and indeed in absolute figures in some cases, in the Western World. Therefore it is, I think, commendable that the hon. the Minister is looking for ways in which to reduce the average daily number of prisoners in South Africa.

I have one or two words of warning about the Bill, however. In this regard I refer specifically to the manner in which parole is granted in South Africa and the conditions under which it is granted. I hope the hon. the Minister will bear in mind the fact that in many cases parole is granted on condition that a person works in a certain area and has a specific occupation. I do not believe that there is, very often, sufficient supervision to ensure that those people are properly treated. So I trust that that is something to which the hon. the Minister will give his attention, because otherwise I think we might find ourselves confronted with some embarrassing cases. For the rest, the change in nomenclature does not in any way affect us. I think it is better to call a prison board a release board, since one of its major powers is to examine recommendations for the parole or probation of prisoners. Therefore we do not, as I have said, have any objections to the Second Reading of this Bill, apart from the few reservations I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton made certain representations to the hon. the Minister in connection with the control and supervision of people released on parole. However, I shall leave the matter at that because the hon. the Minister will undoubtedly reply. This legislation contains an old and a new dispensation. The old dispensation, as the hon. the Minister mentioned in his introductory speech, is that prison boards will in future be called release boards, and the release boards will then be free from all the tasks relating to the treatment and training of prisoners.

Clause 8 of the Bill before us sets out the task of the release boards. Taking into account certain matters set out in the Bill, the task of the boards is to make recommendations in regard to the release of a prisoner on probation or on parole. The institutional committees, on the other hand, are concerned with the treatment of the prisoner. In this regard the hon. the Minister said that the aim of the institutional committees was therefore to give meaningful and positive effect to the objectives of the Department of Prisons, as embodied in section 2(2) (b) of the Prisons Act of 1959. This brings us to the treatment applied to prisoners and this brings us to section 2(2) (b) of the Act. This provides that the aim of the Department is—

This is a very important task which is entrusted to the Department by the Prisons Act. With reference to this section of the principal Act I must point out that a number of regulations have been made, which have been consolidated and adapted over the years, to realize the practical objectives of the Act. In the execution of its duties, the Department of Prisons has succeeded in placing South Africa in the forefront as regards the treatment of prisoners. In this regard South Africa indeed complies with all possible international requirements. In this regard I can refer to the First United Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders of August 1955, which laid down certain minimum requirements for the treatment of prisoners. Our Prisons Act of 1959, as amended, the regulations, and the way in which it is implemented, indeed comply with the basic minimum requirements laid down internationally. According to the requirements of modern and internationally accepted penology, every prisoner is regarded as an individual human being. In this regard we must point out that as regards the treatment of prisoners, the international requirements in regard to human rights are indeed strictly complied with. If there is one thing about which the world cannot criticize South Africa, then it is in the implementation of human rights in the treatment of prisoners. It is a pity that many of the countries that so often raise their voices against South Africa and maintain that human rights are not respected here, countries such as Angola, which causes us a great many problems, themselves do not comply with the international requirements in regard to human rights in this connection.

A prisoner is treated in an extremely scientific way. In the Department there are a number of scientific orientation services. We find that there is proper observation. We find classification of prisoners. We find education and vocational training of prisoners. Apart from this the Department of Prisons makes use of psychological and social analysis and other recognized personality tests as aids in the furtherance of a modern and scientifically based penological concept. In order to achieve all this, the right staff is necessary. Accordingly the Department has highly scientific training centres in Cape Town, Pretoria and Kroonstad. Then, too, we have in the Department special observation centres where the following is determined: The age of the prisoner, his health, his mental health and attitude, his characteristics, his social background and former conduct and his work capacity. After this a proper scientific classification is effected in the prison. I do not want to go into that in detail. It depends on the mental condition and health of the prisoner, his active and latent abilities to adapt and fit in, whether he is able to benefit from the treatment prescribed for him.

When we look at the annual report of the department, we acquire insight into the way in which the Department carries out its important task as expounded in the Prisons Act. The annual report we have available at present concerns for the period 1 July 1977 to 30 June 1978. I understand that the latest annual report will be tabled shortly. Looking at the annual report to which I have referred, we see that details are provided of the specialized treatment applied to prisoners in the Department of Prisons. In this regard there are various educational services, for example studies. In the year reported on, examinations were written in 1 041 subjects by 351 prisoners. 659 Prisoners sat for trade tests and the pass rate was 63%. Up to the end of the year of the report, 5 355 prisoners took part in a reading and writing project. Then, too, psychological services are provided and the Department is justifiably very proud of the psychological services it provides. Apart from that, social work, too, is performed in prisons. In this particular annual report it is pointed out that there is a demand for Coloured and Black social workers. We may take cognizance of the fact that there is a fine career in the Department of Prisons for Coloured and Black social workers. In this regard the report mentions that in that specific year, 118 922 social work interviews were conducted by the social work section. The Department can be proud of the fact that it also sees to the spiritual care of the prisoners, and in this regard there are no fewer than 1 024 part-time and 5 full-time pastoral workers in the Department of Prisons. The approved professional establishment of the Department of Prisons. The approved professional establishment of the Department as at 1 January 1980 gives an indication of the specialized treatment provided by the Department. There are 22 posts for clergymen, 136 posts for male and female social workers, 27 posts for psychologists and 4 posts for educationists. In the achievement of its objectives, constructive use is also made of prison labour in the Department. It has been found that this is a practical way of promoting rehabilitation and the teaching of good habits. Besides that there is training in all branches of the building industry and industrial engineering.

Order! The hon. member is now speaking far beyond the ambit of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the specific function of the institutional committees that are now being brought into being specifically by the Bill, is to promote the objectives of the Prisons Act, as the hon. the Minister indicated in his introductory speech. However, I do not want to go into this matter further, except to say that when we consider the activities of the Department of Prisons, we realize that all South Africa’s people can be particularly proud of this specific Department. Accordingly it is a pleasure to pay tribute to the Department and its officials. The Department’s officials and other members are hard-working and dedicated people. The Commissioner of Prisons, Gen. Du Preez, his general staff and other officers have over the years built up the Department into one of the gems of the Public Service.

I want to conclude by saying that the Department carries out its duties in a humane way, with full recognition of the human dignity of all the prisoners they work with. Their task and their duty are performed in such a way that South Africa and all its people can indeed be proud of them, and we are very grateful to them for that.

Finally, I want to convey my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the fact that the demilitarization of the Department of Prisons is not being proceeded with. This decision by the hon. the Minister is highly appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria Central dealt with various statistics from the latest report of the Department of Prisons, and I can find no fault with that. We in these benches feel that legislation which is aimed at facilitating the rehabilitation of prisoners has the full support of this party. It appears from the Bill before the House that the question of the replacement of the prison boards by the new release boards and institutional committees is an administrative matter which would facilitate the release of further prisoners on probation or on parole. We realize this is an important aspect in the rehabilitation of prisoners and indeed warrants a great deal of thought when one considers the position of parolees and what this aspect means in the rehabilitation of prisoners.

I think this could possibly mean a greater number of parolees and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that the administration does exist to deal with the larger number of parolees that could be released in terms of this legislation, because on page 49 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System in the Republic of South Africa, 1976, it is indicated that the Department of Prisons estimated that the average daily number of parolees at any given moment is 30 000. This is a considerable number, and if this legislation is to facilitate matters for a greater number of parolees, the supervision and surveillance of those parolees becomes of prime importance, because in terms of the provisions before us it is possible for the Commissioner, in terms of the conditions on which a person has been released on probation or parole, to order the arrest of that person for his return to custody. Therefore it is important for the professional surveillance and supervision of these parolees to receive the fullest possible attention of the hon. the Minister and his department. At the time of the Viljoen report it was clearly indicated that there was a tremendous shortage of probation officers and qualified personnel and, indeed, it was highlighted in that report that particularly amongst the Black parolees it was virtually impossible to continue with a reasonable measure of supervision and surveillance for their after-care once they had been released. Certain recommendations were made in the report. This is perhaps not the occasion for the hon. the Minister to reply to some of these aspects, but certainly one of the provisions of the Bill which facilitates the further release of persons on parole and on probation should take into account whether those facilities do exist. We do know that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions provides a service which could perhaps be considered adequate as far as the White parolees are concerned, but indications are that as far as the Coloured and Black parolees are concerned there is a great deal more that can be done to make the parole system more effective and a greater success.

Also with regard to the parolee other recommendations have been made from time to time, for example the question of aftercare hostels where these people can really receive far greater supervision. The information that I have indicated, however that there are very few after-care hostels and, indeed, that some of the after-care hostels have in fact been closed.

Then there is all the machinery which is created for release on parole. The question of differences of opinion between the Department of Police and the Department of Prisons is another aspect which one has to bear in mind. We must remember, too, that from time to time members of the public have expressed a great deal of concern about people being released on parole and then shortly afterwards committing serious offences. Therefore the protection of the public is another important aspect. Here again I should like to refer to the Viljoen report which recommended on page 155—

This is another aspect about which, as a result of the legislation which this House is to pass, we should like to know whether anything in that regard has received the further attention of the hon. the Minister.

We hear, too, that the Prison Boards are to be replaced, and we see that the chairman of the Prison Board, now to be known as the Release Board, will be designated by the Minister, and the chairman of the institutional committees will be designated by the Commissioner of Prisons. I want to make particular reference to the chairmanship of the release boards, for which provision is made in clause 2 of the Bill, which states that “the Minister shall from time to time designate a member of a release board as chairman thereof". The position of chairman is a particularly responsible position, and I should therefore like to know whether the hon. the Minister has given consideration to seeing, where possible, that those positions should be allocated to members of the judiciary. A very important recommendation was also made at the time of the Viljoen report which suggested that a national parole board be established and that it be presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court, with functions and duties as constituted in the manner suggested. That recommendation has obviously not been accepted by the Government, although it has proceeded to change the situation as far as the prison boards are concerned. They are to be known as release boards in terms of this Bill. I therefore do hope that the hon. the Minister can give some indication as to whether the chairmen of these proposed release boards would be members of the judiciary.

With these comments we on these benches wholeheartedly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are quite a few aspects on which I agree with the hon. member for Umbilo. However, I shall come to them in the course of my speech. This is a Bill which has so far led to nothing but unanimity and I should also like to give it my wholehearted support.

The changing of the designation “prison boards” to “release boards” and the establishment of institutional committees in terms of the proposed section 5A are great improvements to the existing Act. I should like to associate myself with what has already been said in this regard by the hon. member for Pretoria Central. The functions and duties of the institutional committees and release boards are set out in the proposed section 61A.

A few interesting facts in connection with prison boards, as they were known in earlier years, are that the department had three prison boards up to and including 1953, viz. one for the Transvaal, a second for Griqualand West, the Orange Free State and Natal and a third for the Cape Province, Griqua-land West excluded. Each of these boards had its own chairman and functioned independently of one another. In 1953, however, there was a deviation from the old policy and a central prison board was established in order to bring about uniformity in prison board matters.

At present there are 28 prison boards and the new designation will, of course, be release boards. If one compares this to the original three in 1953, one can form an idea of the tremendous amount of work that has to be done by these boards. Since the task of the release boards, seen in general, amounts to their having to make recommendations on the remission of penalties for prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for two years and longer, one can appreciate that the work of the boards has increased tremendously since the early ’fifties.

I can mention that, according to the annual report and figures I was able to obtain, there were 47 830 persons who had to serve sentences of two years or longer in our prisons during the year ending 30 June 1973, as against approximately 60 000 during the past year. Consequently there are a tremendous number of cases that have to appear before the release boards every six months. One becomes even more aware of the tremendous work load of the release boards if one takes into account that, according to the latest annual report, the boards consist of 50 members in non-official permanent posts, as many official members as the Minister thinks fit in terms of section 5(3)(a) of the Act, and as many non-official members as the Minister thinks fit.

According to Dr. T. M. Corry in his book Prison Labour on page 179, such a board usually consists of a chairman, a vice-chairman and such other members as may be appointed by the Minister. A quorum is two and the chairman has a deciding vote. According to information from the department retired jurists, clergymen and other persons with a wide experience of life are appointed to such posts. This is commendable, particularly since we are faced with such a tremendous manpower shortage. In the light of the aforementioned facts the appointment of institutional committees can only be welcomed since this will alleviate the work of release boards tremendously.

If further attention is given to the duties of release boards as well as to those of institutional committees seen in general in terms of the envisaged sections 61 and 61A, it is particularly noticeable that there is a certain amount of conformity between the sections as a result of specific words which appear in both and read as follows—

In other words, these release boards as well as institutional committees have to give very careful consideration to the remarks of a presiding officer at the time of the imposition of a sentence. This is an aspect which has to be taken into consideration by the various boards, welfare officers and other officers at all times throughout that prisoner’s stay in the prison.

Various important conclusions follow and questions arise from this. In the first place I should like to associate myself with the words of Mr. Justice Hiemstra, in his book Suid-Afrikaanse Strafprosesreg, on page 407, where he expresses the following opinion on the question of the imposition of sentences—

From my own experience I can also attest in this regard to the fact that this is in fact true in most cases. The process of conviction is a long drawn out one, but sentencing is something which follows very quickly. With all due respect I should like to suggest that far more attention could quite probably be given to the question of the imposition of a sentence. In that respect one should give very serious attention to the provisions in the Act in respect of release boards and institutional committees. Our presiding officers in our courts could also give this matter serious consideration.

In this regard I should also like to refer to a remark made by the hon. Mr. Justice Steyn. As far back as 1966 he expressed the following opinion in this regard at a symposium—

In view of this I believe that presiding officers should make greater use of social welfare officers, as well as officers of Nicro, the National Institute for Criminology and the Rehabilitation of Offenders, to make recommendations on such sentences. Nicro …

The hon. member must not digress so far from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker—with all due respect—I am referring specifically to the provisions of the proposed sections 61 and 61 A, which refer specifically to the question of the imposition of a sentence and to the duty imposed on presiding officers in this respect. In that respect I associate myself specifically with what I quoted here. It could be said that welfare reports could entail great expense, could lead to long delays before the sentence is passed, and that the Department of National Welfare and Pensions does not have enough officers to do that work. I am aware of the fact that South Africa has a daily prison population of approximately 100 000. I am also aware of the fact that the staff of the Department of Prisons at present is approximately 16 000. If one examines the control measures and what it costs the State to detain prisoners, and if one examines the budget of the S.A. Police, of Justice and of Prisons, one sees that this amounts to almost R300 million per annum. If one were to give more attention to the question of the proper imposition of a sentence, I think there could in actual fact be a great saving in this regard. I also noted with much gratification that the question of the imposition of sentences was recently the subject of serious reflection by the Attorney General of the Transvaal, his staff and the staff of Nicro. With all due respect, I believe that this is a step in the right direction.

What happens to a prisoner after sentence has been imposed? In this regard the hon. member for Pretoria Central has already referred to the question of classification according to sex, etc., and referral to observation centres. In this regard I cannot give a better description than what is stated in a publication entitled Prison Administration in South Africa. On page 11 the following is said—

In this regard the allocation is also important and attention is given to the reports of institutional committees. In this regard release boards take very specific cognizance of the recommendations made by the institutional committees in this regard. However, if one bears in mind that there are approximately 60 000 cases that have to be considered by these boards, one will realize that the work load is being alleviated to a tremendous extent by the institutional committees.

I want to suggest with all due respect that a very great improvement is being effected by this legislation. To conclude I also wish to refer to a brief paragraph by a writer, called Graser, on the question of “pre-sentence investigation”. I quote from page 11—

Consequently I wish to suggest that if more attention were given to the question of background reports at the time of the imposition of a sentence, those reports could be used to very good effect by our institutional committees and release boards.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their particular interest in this Bill. I should like to refer to the argument that the hon. member for Roodepoort has just advanced. It is clear that he prepared himself well. I am referring in particular to the last matter he referred to. Although strictly speaking it does not fall within the provisions of the Bill, there is a very interesting tie up with another provision in the legislation relating to the institutional committees. And that is that if more attention—and I do not intend it as criticism—or sufficient attention were paid to this matter, as we in fact believe the courts are trying to do to the best of their ability, it would greatly assist the institutional committees and the release boards. It was a very valid statement, and I thank the hon. member for his contribution.

I also thank the hon. member for Pretoria Central for the attention he has given the Bill and for the ideas that he expressed in this connection. As the hon. member said, it is true that our prisons, our prison institutions and their administration certainly comply with international requirements. Moreover it is a well-known fact that our institutions compare well with the best to be found anywhere in the world—administratively and otherwise. To the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Umbilo I should like to give the assurance that with regard to parole the idea now is not that more people will be released on parole, nor that people will be released on parole more rapidly. This is actually a purely administrative measure. It is an administrative Bill intended to facilitate our administration as far as dealing with a prisoner is concerned. However, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Houghton that we think that sufficient supervision is maintained over prisoners who are released on parole. If such a prisoner should have any complaints after he has been released on parole, he has every opportunity to approach the head of the prison he came from with his problem. As far as possible prisoners released on parole are also visited regularly by members or officers of the department to determine whether or not the employer is complying with the relevant conditions of parole. If it is found that the complaints of a prisoner released on parole are valid and just, the matter is rectified and he may even be allowed to change his job. That just by way of assurance. We can discuss this matter further when my Vote comes up for discussion. I do not think this is the right occasion to go into the finer details of the matter. However, I should just like to reassure the hon. member.

The hon. member for Umbilo covered a very wide spectrum. He made a very roundabout approach to the legislation under discussion. I did appreciate it, however. Although I have read large sections of the Viljoen Report, I have not prepared myself in that regard for this specific debate. Nevertheless I should like to put it to the hon. member that it has always been the standpoint and the endeavour of the Department of Prisons to appoint experienced people, as the hon. member for Roodepoort also pointed out, as chairmen of the boards in question. They were not in all cases jurists. They were not in all cases magistrates, retired magistrates or other judicial officers. With the new developments in the department with regard to rationalization and planning for the future, I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that from now on attempts will as far as possible be made to obtain judicial or retired judicial officers as chairmen for these boards.

I do not think it is necessary to go into any further details. As far as the release of prisoners on probation or on parole is concerned, however, I should just like to point out that the provisions of this Bill refer to the fact that the Minister may in one instance release a person on parole, while, in cases of release on probation, the approval of the State President has to be obtained. All that is therefore being asked here, is that the work load of the State President should be alleviated by allowing release on probation to take place in certain circumstances by way of approval by the Minister. This is basically all it entails.

I am grateful for the interest shown by hon. members and also for the trouble they took in presenting this interesting information to the House and discussing it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members will know, a start was made some time ago with the organizational rationalization of the Public Service, and since then, the hon. the Prime Minister has issued statements concerning the implementation of specific facets of this process.

During the process of rationalization, specific function modules will also be moved about among departments under the control of various Ministers, but because of the complexity of the task, it has not yet been possible for all modules which are concerned with certain aspects, and which have to be transferred to other departments in due course, to be identified in such a way that they can be transferred immediately.

On the other hand, however, it is also desirable that the administration and implementation of certain laws, or parts thereof, should be entrusted to the new controlling Minister even at this early stage, while the department, to whose staff certain powers may be delegated in terms of the laws concerned, still falls under another or previous Minister.

As will be noticed, the Bill is merely intended to overcome interim problems concerning the implementation of certain statutory provisions and it will only be utilized as an interim measure until transfers of staff resulting from the process of rationalization can be completed.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the explanations of the hon. the Minister in regard to this Bill. We see the development that is proposed as a logical one in the wake of the announcements made some while ago by the hon. the Prime Minister concerning the rationalization of the Public Service and the streamlining of the functions of various departments and officials. It is clear to all of us that in the months that lie ahead certain departments will be merged with others, certain departments will vanish and some posts occupied by certain officials will be changed. Functions will change hands as the departmental process of rationalization takes place. Despite the rationalization of the Public Service, however, the laws on the Statute Book involving the delegation of functions to officials will remain unchanged unless this aspect is, in fact, attended to. Clearly, an updating of the laws on the Statute Book is going to be necessary to give effect to the rationalization programme announced by the hon. the Prime Minister. Certainly in some cases a redesignation of posts and functions is going to be necessary, and in fact it is going to be desirable for certain functions to be transferred from one department to a new rationalized department in order to give effect to the efficient rationalization of the Public Service.

The orthodox way of handling this would be, I assume, to bring each and every law at present on the Statute Book before Parliament in order to change the designations, where necessary, in each case. That would, however, mean amending a large number of Acts, and this would be a very lengthy, time-consuming and time-wasting process. Indeed it would be a tedious process. So the obvious answer to this problem is an enabling Bill, a Bill which will enable the State President, acting on the advice of the Cabinet, to redesignate titles and functions. That would naturally take far less time. In principle, therefore, I should like to say that we shall have no objection whatsoever to the passage of this Bill through all its stages.

I have one or two small queries I should like to put to the hon. the Minister and, hopefully, when he replies to the debate he will be able to give the answers to them. Largely affected in the rationalization programme and certainly by the terms of the Bill are the budgetary provisions which are to be found in the statutes presently in the Statute Book, as also the functions and designations of accounting officers. I should like to assume, and I should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister, that money voted by Parliament for a specific purpose will not in the rationalization programme by means of the redesignation of functions or titles find itself being used in another way. The principle of parliamentary accountability for money voted by Parliament should remain firm in the intention of the Minister and in the intention of the statute. Therefore I would like to have the assurance that, in passing this Bill, we will not in fact in any way be assisting the transferring of money which has been voted in one department perhaps to another under the rationalization process. That is the first question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister.

The second relates to lines 8 to 11 of the Bill. Let me just read the relevant provision—

The Government is then allowed to do the necessary redesignations, and then the provision continues in line 18—

The words I referred to and would like some absolute clarification on are “may adjust the provisions of any law”. We should like to know precisely what is envisaged by this provision. I do not believe it should be the State President’s right to in fact change law. That is a legislative function. It is the function of this House. Where there is an enabling provision to redesignate a post or a function, I have no difficulty with it; but I do have a difficulty with it when the wording is such that it appears that not only can the redesignation be brought about but that a law might also be changed by Presidential decree. Is this not perhaps just a little too wide? I do realize that this power is in fact qualified. It is not a total power. The Bill provides that the State President may adjust the provision of any law and then it is qualified by the following words: “In order to give effect to such direction.” In other words, the power to adjust a law is limited to a situation where effect must be given to the previous intention stated in the Bill. It is therefore not an exceedingly wide power which is being granted to the State President, but to take again the monetary provisions as an example, we would like to have a situation where the hon. the Minister can give us an assurance that this will not mean that, for instance, moneys can be passed which have not been voted accordingly or that a law could be changed in any substantive way.

I have a final question—it is not an objection. My question is: What is the reason for the date 1 March 1981? Clause 2 provides—

Why is that? Is it because it is anticipated or programmed that at that time the rationalization programme will have been completed and that all the redesignations will have been completed? Once the rationalization programme has been completed, we will, obviously, not revert to the old situation. If the hon. the Minister could reply to those few queries, I would be grateful, but regardless of that, we shall be supporting the Bill because we believe it is a logical and correct step to take.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton took a long time to say a simple thing, and that is that the official Opposition supports the legislation under consideration.

We thank them for their support of the legislation, but only the hon. member for Sandton will know why it was necessary to be so long-winded about it. After all, the hon. member himself furnished the replies to the questions he asked. He alleged, for example, that legislative powers were being conferred upon the State President and that he had misgivings about this, but then he himself pointed out that these powers were quite limited and were very obviously only being conferred in order to implement the legislation.

The hon. member also referred to the transfer of funds. In this connection I can give him the assurance—perhaps the hon. the Minister will also refer to this—that those involved in supervising the application of funds that have been voted will most certainly give attention to this aspect of the matter.

I do not want to advance a lengthy argument. The hon. the Minister clearly emphasized the need for and desirability of the measure, and the hon. member for Sandton did the same in his own way. Therefore I want to conclude by saying that we on this side of the House have no hesitation in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in the process of rationalization which is taking place at the moment, legislation such as this is inevitable. It may be accepted that when reorganization takes place in the Public Service, anomalies will arise under certain circumstances. There is virtually only one other point I wish to make, except for saying that we support the legislation, and that is to tell the hon. the Minister that care will have to be taken with regard to the changes that are going to take place and that the spirit of the original law should not be violated. We are not concerned with the letter of the law, but rather with its spirit. In this connection I want to point out that one of the matters one has to consider when legislation is introduced is on what level delegation of powers will be allowed. In the new rationalization and reorganization, we are going to have a position where certain departments are going to be upgraded, while other departments are going to be downgraded, and the same is going to happen with regard to the officials who serve in this structure. I think this question should be taken into consideration in the new delegation of powers. In practice it will be found that certain duties and powers in the Public Service will be exercised by persons who serve on a lower level in terms of the new rationalization. I think that very great care will have to be taken in this respect, for this is where one could have problems in the future. Therefore my plea to the Ministers concerned and to the departments is that when they make use of the powers—I agree that there must be such powers—very great care must be taken to ensure that this does not result in something which is actually contrary to the spirit of the original law, especially since it will sometimes happen that certain persons will obtain certain powers while the original intention was that they should not have these powers. This is the only problem I foresee, and I want to sound a warning for the future in this connection. For the rest, we support this legislation, because it is absolutely essential.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support of the Bill, which is merely a temporary measure and which is necessary for the process of rationalization, as I have already explained. Hon. members should please not scrutinize the whole matter too carefully. I want to assure hon. members that before the Interior Vote and the Public Service Vote come up for discussion, I shall issue a White Paper so that the House and the public may be fully informed. We can also discuss all these things in detail during the discussion of my Vote.

I can only tell the hon. member for Durban Central that the level of delegation, as prescribed in the existing laws, will not be adjusted now. We shall examine the need for adjustment when legislation is examined in terms of rationalization. In fact, I do not think hon. members should see anything suspect in this innocent little piece of legislation. It is really not something which a Minister introduces in an attempt to bamboozle the Opposition. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the “bamboozle”; I used it in a playful sense.

†The hon. member for Sandton raised a question regarding the transfer of funds. The new budgeting system makes it possible to transfer funds if agreed to by the Treasury. Any adjustment of a provision of any law must be seen in the context of what is envisaged with this legislation as an interim expedient measure. It is certainly not the intention to achieve other objectives. The question was asked: Why 1 March? It is a reasonable period to give effect to all the detailed aspects of implementation. It is envisaged that the interim problems will be sorted out by then and that the relevant modules will have been identified for transfer. I thank hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In 1924 the State obtained control over the Sunday’s River Settlement when it took over the assets and interests of the Cape Sundays River Settlements Limited company. At that stage the company owned the waterworks and several thousand hectares of undeveloped land in the settlement. Due to serious financial problems, however, it could not continue to manage and develop the scheme. After the take-over, the waterworks and vacant land became the property of the State and after that the settlement was managed as a State settlement.

By 1934, the Government felt that the time had come to transfer the control of certain local affairs to a local government body. As a result of this decision, the Sunday’s River Settlement Management Act was passed, in which provision was made for the establishment of a management board. The management board was empowered to look after specific local affairs such as the control of pastures, the maintenance of roads and certain health services. With the exception of land that was reserved for State purposes, all the vacant State land which was in the possession of the State at that stage, was transferred to the management board. In the years since its inception, the management board has carried out the functions and duties entrusted to it in a responsible manner.

†Conditions on the settlement have, however, changed considerably since the establishment of the board. Especially during recent years it became apparent that the management board is not equipped to meet the demands of present-day local government. In fact, it is not the function of the board to concern itself with matters of local governet as it has no authority in this respect.

After consultation between the divisional council and the management board it was agreed that the council shall take over full control of the area and provide the required services. It should be mentioned that the division of Uitenhage has from 1 January this year been included in the new division of Winterhoek.

The board has at its disposal assets consisting of approximately R75 000 in cash as well as about 800 hectares of land. In accordance with a decision by the management board these assets will be handed over to the council of the division of Winterhoek on condition that they shall be utilized for the promotion of the welfare of the Sundays River Settlement and its residents. The Bill now before the House provides for the arrangements to which I have just referred to be put into effect and for the repeal of the Sundays River Settlement Management Act, 1935.

Since the interests of the owners of land within the Sundays River Settlement cannot be ignored, the Bill is being treated as a hybrid measure. The intention to introduce the Bill was made public beforehand by means of the Government Gazette and local newspapers while interested parties, whose addresses could be traced, were informed of the matter by registered post. The Bill was also open to inspection at the local magistrate, the divisional council of Uitenhage and the Provincial Secretary, Cape Town.

* Special attempts were made to inform the interested parties of the contents of the Bill. Consequently, it is a pleasure for me to be able to confirm that no objections were received to any provision in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think that when one supports a measure, one should say so and then resume one’s seat. I should like to set an example to other hon. members in this regard. It is a pleasure for this side of the House to support the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to this legislation and to wish the inhabitants of the settlement everything of the best for the future.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with this apparently insignificant piece of legislation this afternoon is a special occasion for this House. Before I enlarge on this, I should very much like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the way in which he dealt with the legislation. It came a long way before reaching this point. Therefore we are very grateful for the special approach which the hon. the Minister adopted in this regard to enable the legislation to be before the House today.

I should also like to thank Mr. Joubert of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure who took a great deal of trouble in dealing with this hybrid Bill. I was impressed by the exceptional zeal which he showed in finalizing the legislation. We say thank you very much to him.

We also say thank you very much to the secretary of the former Uitenhage Divisional Council, which is now the Winterhoek Divisional Council, Mr. Crous. He encountered problems with the local authorities and he did his best to have the legislation piloted through Parliament. In him we have a fine official, who looks after local interests with enthusiasm.

I should also like to express my gratitude towards the Management Board. Since the earliest years of British immigration, the English board members have guided this board. We have a great deal of appreciation for those people—some of them quite advanced in age—who watched over the affairs of this board in a very honest way. I want to thank the board very much for all the years of service to the community under their management.

In his speech, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the original Act was passed as early as in 1934.

The piloting of this Bill is a special event in the annals of this House. This is a piece of proposed legislation which had its beginnings in the years before the Anglo-Boer War. The man who was actually responsible for the original Act, was a personal friend of Sir Starr Jameson. He participated in the Jameson Raid in the Transvaal. I am now referring to the author of Jock of the Bushveld, viz. Sir Percy Fitzpatrick. He was the founder of what ultimately led indirectly to this Bill. Sir Percy was a very colourful figure, who has been portrayed very well by the author A. P. Cartwright in a wonderful book, The First South African, an article of Africana which I can really recommend. I was able to draw the material for my argument today from that book in a very pleasant way. This particular son of South Africa started out as a bank clerk in the Standard Bank building in Adderley Street, which is still standing today. When gold was discovered, he went to the gold fields at Barberton. There he became acquainted with fife on trek and received the inspiration for Jock of the Bushveld. He also made friends there with people who were later to become magnates on the Rand, such as the Joel brothers, Mr. W. B. Taylor and other famous figures. Later on he also befriended Sir Lionel Phillips and Cecil John Rhodes. Sir Percy Fitzpatrick was a great, particularly colourful figure, who made good friends wherever he went. He was one of those people who stood between Paul Kruger on the one hand and the British on the other.

But they were foreigners.

Yes. Whilst the British said that their home was in England, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick said that South Africa was his country. That is why he is called the first South African.

After the Anglo-Boer War, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick was one of the leaders of the then Progressive Party. [Interjections.] He was an important man in this party. He stood against Gen. Louis Botha, the leader of the Het Volk Party in the election of 1907. The Het Volk Party gained 67 seats on that occasion and the Progressive Party 27. Throughout the years they have never had more than 20-odd members. [Interjections.] He was a political figure par exellence. He was a wonderful person, who later became a very good friend of Gen. Louis Botha. However, he was a man who could never manage his finances. He was always in the red and the big magnates, like Sir Lionel Phillips, were always having to finance him. It is striking that he met Cecil John Rhodes on one occasion early in those years. They decided to establish settlements in South Africa by means of immigration. They wanted to obtain British people in order to westernize South Africa. In 1913 he accompanied Sir Thomas Smartt along the Garden Route in order to look at some territories for this type of British settlements. Sir Percy was a member of Parliament at the time. Interestingly enough, on that occasion he reached the Sundays River Valley where he was taken by a certain estate agent called Birch to the Lookout, a hill on the banks of the Sunday River, in order to see the view of the valley. Of course, at the time it was a vast wooded landscape. He had a beautiful view of this fine valley. Amazingly enough, he did not buy the land at once but the Amanzi Estate, near Uitenhage, where artesian wells still exist today. It is interesting to note that the first citrus trees were planted by Sir Percy at Amanzi. After the experience that he had gained in California, he was actually the one who began the citrus industry at Amanzi. This industry is worth quite a few millions of rands per annum in foreign currency to the country today.

Interestingly enough, when certain groups began to form in the Sundays River Valley and to buy out certain properties, with large sums of money from Sir Percy’s old friends, the mining magnates, things became so hectic that a tremendous drought in 1921 caused the group of settlers, who made a living from flood irrigation from the Sundays River at the time, to rebel to such an extent that they came to Parliament and asked for protection from the concept of an industry in the Sundays River Valley. In 1924 the Sundays River Settlement Board was established, when the Government took over practically the entire area because the occupants could not manage any longer. It is interesting to note that the legislation at the time relieved the local people, who were burdened with tremendous debts, of their obligations. In 1934, as the hon. the Deputy Minister told us, the territory was returned to the inhabitants, and the Sundays River Settlement Management Board was established.

I may just add that this wonderful man’s family history had a very tragic ending, but it is wonderful to think that today he, his wife and his two sons are buried near the same hill where he first had a view of the valley, viz. the Lookout. It is a wonderful experience to stand at the grave and read the fine inscription on the tombstone: “A great son of South Africa.” It is also very fine to know that the Amanzi Estate still belongs to the descendants of Sir Percy Fitzpatrick. This beautiful estate, and even Umfuleni, in the Sundays River Valley, belongs to the Nivens, who are descendants of the wonderful Sir Percy. That is why I say that this legislation offers a wonderful opportunity to cast our thoughts back to this man who did so much good for his beloved fatherland. I am referring particularly to his contribution towards the citrus industry and the fine irrigation scheme in the Sundays River Valley.