TUESDAY, 30 OCTOBER 2001 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 14:03.

The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

                 MEDIUM-TERM BUDGET POLICY STATEMENT

                                 and

                   ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION BILL

                           (Introduction)

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker and hon members, today we place before this House both the Adjustments Appropriation Bill and the Medium- Term Budget Policy Statement. The Bill invites Parliament to consider changes to spending estimates for this financial year, set out in more detail in the Adjusted Estimates of National Expenditure.

We know that changes to budgets in the course of the year are almost inevitable, as budgeting is not a perfect science. In many ways, preparing the February Budget may be likened to a farmer ploughing and sowing the field. Since the Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs recently celebrated the Female Farmer of the Year, it is appropriate that we get the gender correct. This farmer looks ahead to harvest time, calculating the yield of the crop that holds much promise. Good rains and favourable omens allow her to harvest a crop that exceeds her highest expectations. Too much or too little rain may cause her to review her prospects when planning ahead for the next season.

Equally, when preparing the Budget, it is impossible to foresee all the events that may affect spending during the year. The Adjusted Estimates of National Expenditure, which are in a new format, revise the Estimates set out in the February Budget. As I have said, this is a new format combining various explanatory memoranda prepared for each national Vote in previous years. I know that members will find the new format both convenient and informative. Indeed, I hope that in this interesting place called Parliament, the review of the information provided by departments will become a standard part of the intelligence-gathering role of all portfolio committees, alongside the interrogation of the departments’ annual reports, the main Estimates published in February and strategic plans due to be tabled for the first time in March next year.

Alongside the Adjusted Estimates, we lay before this House the 2001 Medium- Term Budget Policy Statement. This is the framework that we will use when finalising the Budget that will be tabled in February next year. The statement sets out our economic forecasts for the next few years and the fiscal framework within which the 2002 Budget will be compiled. It outlines the policy matters that will shape next year’s Medium-Term Expenditure Framework and proposes the division of revenue between national, provincial and local government for the next three years. So, in many respects, it is like talking about the Budget without the numbers, because the focus is largely on the policy issues.

Firstly, let me say that both these documents have benefited greatly from constructive comments and advice emanating from this House. The revised format of the Adjusted Estimates is largely the result of recommendations made at this time last year when the 2000 Adjustments Budget was considered by the Portfolio Committee on Finance and both this Assembly and the NCOP.

In keeping with the spirit of the Public Finance Management Act, the changes to departmental budgets provided for in the Adjustments Appropriation Bill are now more fully explained against the background of the aims, objectives and programmes of each Vote. Whilst the PFMA sets strict limits to the kind of spending for which additional funds may be appropriated, it also provides for various other changes, mainly the roll- over of unspent moneys from the previous year and the shifting or virement of funds from one purpose to another. These are all explained in a single consolidated document.

In the case of the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, the guiding influence of Parliament is clearly much greater. Since the first MTBPS was published in December 1997, the annual debates in its proposals have increasingly shaped the prioritisation and policy reviews that accompany the Budget process. The Medium-Term Expenditure Framework is increasingly an outcome of the legislative and policy oversight role that this House and the NCOP play.

I am particularly pleased that, this year, the Intergovernmental Fiscal Review has attracted such careful and considered attention in the NCOP. Members will find echoes of the issues which were raised in these hearings in several chapters of the MTBPS. I know that when budgets are tabled both here and in the nine provincial legislatures next year, and when filling in the details of the 2002 MTEF, the profound contributions of parliamentary review towards shaping our Budget and spending plans will be much more evident.

The Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement will be explored in detail over the next fortnight by a brand new Budget committee with joint representation of the NA and the NCOP. In establishing this committee, Parliament is taking a giant step forward in its fiscal responsibility and oversight role. I am particularly pleased that it begins its life with the review of the annual Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement. Although the statement does not contain all the details that the committee will in due course want to examine, it is entirely appropriate that its work should begin with the broad framework, wider economic context and the fiscal policy objectives and medium-term goals of Government as a whole, including, of course, the national, provincial and local spheres. Allow me to say a few words about the Adjustments Appropriation before returning to the broader Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. In the 2001 Budget, tabled in this House on 21 February, we anticipated a total expenditure this year of R258,3 billion. The revised estimate is R261,1 billion or R2,8 billion more than the main estimate. However, the Adjustments Appropriation provides for a total of R8,5 billion in addition to the amounts voted in the main appropriation this year. The arithmetic is as follows.

The Treasury Committee has recommended unforeseeable and unavoidable expenditure of R2,8 billion for national departments, R1,5 billion for provinces and R328 million for local government, against the contingency reserve this year of R2 billion. Therefore, there is an additional R4,6 billion recommended, which raises the expenditure level by R2,6 billion.

The House is requested to agree to roll-overs of unspent moneys from last year’s appropriations of R2,2 billion. Against these roll-overs, we anticipate that aggregate underspending this year will be just under R2 billion, which results in a net contribution to the expenditure level of R200 million.

The Adjustments Appropriation also provides for R1,7 billion in spending on infrastructure, flood damage repairs and poverty relief, announced in the main Budget but not yet appropriated. This does not add to the spending level; in fact, there is a net saving of R70 million, mainly because of projects that will extend beyond the present year.

Other adjustments yield a net saving of R14 million. These include self- financing expenditure of R30 million, an increase of R9 million in the remuneration of judges, which is a statutory appropriation, a reduction of R50 million in the expected proceeds of the skills development levy, and a saving of R3 million on the Housing Vote. The Adjustments Appropriation of R8,5 billion adds just R2,8 billion to the national Budget expenditure. If only all our arithmetic worked out like this!

I do not propose to detail all the adjustments made, but members are entitled to an explanation of some of the larger amounts. Let me deal first with the additional amounts recommended by the Treasury Committee as unforeseeable and unavoidable expenditure.

This year’s Public Service negotiations led to an average increase in salaries of 6,58%, whereas the original budget provided for an average of 6%. The difference is taken into account in the additional allocations to provinces and national departments, except where our review of in-year spending trends indicates that national departments will be able to meet the revised personnel costs without further assistance.

For budgetary purposes, I know that my provincial colleagues will join me - all nine of them, not just one - in expressing appreciation to the Minister for the Public Service and Administration, but also to the Public Service unions for reaching an agreement in time for the Adjustments Appropriation. This means that we can budget with greater certainty for personnel costs next year, and public servants will receive their increases in July 2002, and not in October.

The provincial share of the additional amounts for personnel costs is included in the proposed supplement to provincial equitable share allocations of R1,2 billion. Also taken into account here is the rapid progress made in registering beneficiaries of the child support grant and the need to clear backlogs in rank and leg promotions, particularly in provincial health departments.

The Adjustments Appropriation also provides for R300 million to go to Mpumalanga province, as part of an intervention in terms of section 100(1)(a) of the Constitution, following an approach by the province after it experienced cash-flow problems. Members will be relieved to know that steps to put financial management on a sound footing are well advanced.

For local government, the 2001-02 year has of course been something of a watershed. The entire municipal landscape has been swept clean, the boundaries have been redrawn, new authorities have been constructed, and there is a new momentum to the extension of basic services to low-income communities. The Adjustments Appropriation provides R108 million as a once- off transitional subsidy for remuneration of councillors, and R200 million to supplement free basic services. The additional allocation to local government will address unforeseeable transitional issues that have emerged in this financial year, including the funding of municipalities that have weak fiscal and institutional capacity relative to their service delivery responsibilities.

Amongst the national departments, the largest adjustments go to Foreign Affairs, Statistics South Africa, Public Enterprises, Social Development, Defence, Safety and Security, Communications, Labour, Land Affairs and Transport. Foreign Affairs receives R79 million to compensate for the effect of the depreciation of the rand on the cost of maintaining our overseas diplomatic capacity. In addition, R215 million deals with the inclusion of foreign service allowances in the taxable income of personnel working abroad.

Statistics SA is allocated supplementary funding for Census 2001. The costing of the census was initially based on the 1996 census experience. However, on the advice of the Statistics Council, Statistics SA has increased the number of enumerator areas, substantially improved census management, strengthened checking of census returns and invested in new equipment to accelerate the processing of information. The Treasury Committee has recommended an additional R140 million, and R155 million is included as a roll-over of unspent funds from last year. The overall cost of Census 2001 will be the equivalent - and I apologise for using ``the equivalent’’ thus - but the equivalent of $2,50 a person, which compares favourably with the costs in countries as diverse as Botswana with $3,40, Namibia with $5,33, Hungary with $3,70 and the United States with $20 a person.

I know that members will want to be assured that this expenditure will deliver a reliable count, so let me take this opportunity to commend the many thousands of census workers who have successfully completed the count in most enumeration areas. In some metropolitan areas counting has again been slow, and for those who have not yet been counted, please be patient. I have agreed to the request by the Statistician-General, Mr Pali Lehlola, that enumeration can continue for the next week in those neighbourhoods where gates, walls, dogs, out-of-date street maps, incomprehensible family structures, poor communication and other unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstances may have led to delays. [Interjections.]

The Public Enterprises Vote receives additional allocations of R70 million for the anticipated costs of the Telkom IPO, and R94 million to deal with the pension fund shortfalls of Safcol. Safety and Security receives R250 million to enable rank and leg promotion backlogs to be cleared. [Interjections.] Is that all right?

Ms N E HANGANA: Chairperson, yes.

The MINISTER: Good. An amount of R600 million is recommended for the Communications Vote to finance a R300 million a year subsidy for the Post Office for the present year and last year. Government has accepted that a new programme of reorganisation will be required in order to achieve a sustainable balance sheet and operational structure for the Post Office and its banking arm. The Communications Vote also receives additional funding to meet costs incurred by the Independent Communications Authority, Icasa, to prepare for the licensing of the second national telephone service operator.

On the Labour Vote, R605 million is recommended to meet the accumulated shortfalls of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The UIF is a key component of our social security system, providing relief to many people who lose their jobs in the course of industrial structuring or restructuring, and also maternity and death benefits to workers. The UIF is funded by employer and employee contributions, and it should not need supplementary allocations. However, in recent years contributions collected have lagged behind while benefits claimed have continued to escalate. Recognising the important role of the UIF in contributing to the income security of the poor, the restructuring of the fund has been prioritised. Legislation and reorganisation as well as management of the fund will, in due course, return it to a self-sustaining financial position.

Against the background of an unanticipated acceleration in Government’s Land Restitution Programme, an additional R50 million is recommended for the Land Affairs Vote. Projects targeted for completion this year include Alexandra and District Six.

The Treasury Committee has recommended an additional R250 million for the Transport Vote to meet shortfalls in bus subsidy payments and the operational budget of the SA Rail Commuter Corporation. These are, in part, related to the cost escalation associated with higher fuel costs, and unforeseeable events such as rail accidents and restructuring within the bus service industry. These and other adjustments and the resulting changes in the overall allocations by Vote are set out in the published Adjusted Estimates of National Expenditure.

As in the past the Treasury Committee has evaluated a wide range of requests for additional funding against the criteria for unforeseeable and unavoidable expenditure set out in the Public Finance Management Act and its regulations. In some cases, such as the UIF and Post Office allocations, the amounts recommended are substantial and Government recognises that further work needs to be done to ensure that programmes or agencies involved are put on a sound and sustainable footing.

In a number of other cases the Treasury Committee has found itself evaluating requests for minor adjustments or specific commitments, which whilst satisfying the unforeseeable and unavoidable test, nonetheless represent items that could be accommodated if departments had made appropriate provision for contingencies in their forward planning and budgeting. Now that the Public Finance Management Act requires formal evaluation of risks and the risk management framework to be in place, we expect fewer requests to the Treasury Committee for additional funds in future.

The House will be pleased to know that the additional expenditure recommended can be accommodated without anticipating higher Government borrowing. This year’s harvest has exceeded our expectations, based on the robust trend in the first half of the year. The expected revenue this year will exceed budget projections by some R4,8 billion. The deficit for the year is expected to be R22,8 billion or 2,3% of GDP, compared to the February estimate of 2,5%. I am therefore pleased to commend the Adjustments Appropriation Bill for the 2001-2002 year for consideration.

Let me now turn to the 2001 Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement and the economic context within which next year’s Budget will be framed. Since the Budget was tabled on 21 February, an already deteriorating international economic trend has been rocked by attacks on the US and the resulting war in Afghanistan.

The slowdown in world growth has deepened and financial markets have experienced a flight from risk to safe havens. The rand has weakened considerably. But our trade performance in the first nine months of this year has remained impressive. Government revenue has grown strongly and there has been recovery in capital spending. Although we now expect growth of 2,6% this year, down from our February estimate of 3,5%, we expect South Africa to avoid the dislocation that many other emerging economies are presently experiencing. As we speak, Argentina is living through yet another crisis.

Indeed South Africa’s healthy balance of payments, declining inflation and sound public finances allow us to propose fiscal policy adjustments that will sustain and reinforce the momentum of our growth and development. The Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement reaffirms Government’s firm intent to address our social and developmental challenges within a consistent growth- oriented fiscal and budgetary framework.

When we tabled the Budget in this House in February we said, and I quote:

This Budget tells the story of the choices and decisions we have made and which have advanced the transformation of our country and its economy to the point where we can now begin to enjoy the fruit. It tells the story of a young and proud democracy hard at work to improve the lives of all its people.

In a world where so many economies are already in recession, where millions of workers are being retrenched, where tens of thousands of firms are closing down, where governments are battling to collect the taxes necessary to fund even basic services, we must pause to consider the correctness of the tough decisions we took earlier.

If we compare our situation now to that in 1998 when, in response to the global financial crisis interest rates rose by more than 7%, little money was available to support the policy choices of departments, pensions and grants could not be increased to keep pace with inflation. All of the pressures we faced were very real then. However, the present global economic crisis is much worse: The rand has depreciated by the same margin as in 1998, but our economic base is now much stronger. Interest rates have not been increased this time.

Key features of economic performance include the following: Firstly, growth of 10,4% in merchandise export volumes in the first half of this year compared to the same period last year, whilst services exports grew by some 15% over the same period; secondly, a decline in the net open forward position of the Reserve Bank, representing uncovered future claims in foreign exchange reserves, down from US$ 9,5 billion in January to US$ 4,8 billion in September; thirdly, steady growth in most sectors in the economy this year, and particularly in wholesale and retail trade, financial services and the transport, storage and communication sectors; fourthly, an improvement in domestic investment across a broad range of industries, including real growth in both public and private sector capital formation; fifthly, a modest recovery in domestic saving accompanied by an encouraging reduction in household debt relative to incomes; and sixthly, steady declines in both producer and consumer price inflation.

In September the consumer price index minus mortgage costs, the so-called CPIX, increased by 5,8%. Within the target range set for next year our expectation is that it will average 5,5% next year. Taking into account the lags involved in monetary policy implementation, it is necessary to set inflation targets for the medium term. Accordingly, I have consulted with the Governor of the Reserve Bank and we reached full agreement on all issues. I therefore presented a proposal to the Cabinet reflecting this common position. Having considered the matter, Cabinet agreed with our proposal.

Therefore, I am mandated by Cabinet to make the following announcement, covering the years 2003 to 2005. The inflation target will remain an annual average increase of between 3% and 6% in CPIX in 2003. For 2004 and 2005 the target will be 3% to 5%. There has from time to time been speculation on the flexibility of the inflation targets in the event of large external shocks and the impact on price trends. In order to remove uncertainty, we have agreed with the Reserve Bank on the escape clause dealing with such events, which is set out in full in chapter 2 of the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement.

Our expectation is that inflation will steadily ease over the years ahead, reaching about 4,5% in the third year of the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. Economic growth of 2,6% in this year will result in growth in the fiscal year of about 2,4%, followed by growth averaging 3,5% over the forthcoming three-year period.

If one considers all these issues, all these positive trends in the economy, we need to remind ourselves, as we did in February, that ``its fruits gradually acquire the sweet taste of liberty’’. Our fiscal policy stance plays a role in supporting this projected recovery in growth. The Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement outlines a bold programme of further tax relief and strong real expenditure growth, building on the firm foundation to fiscal consolidation in recent years.

Expenditure increases over the next three years will be focused on health services and social grants, municipal infrastructure and housing, improved police and justice services and critical administrative services to citizens. Budgetary provision for the electrification programme will also be stepped up.

We have made provision for shortfalls in the operating budgets of the Post Office and the Unemployment Insurance Fund over the next three years, allowing for a period of restructuring in order to restore self- sufficiency. Moderate easing of the overall tax burden will continue, with relief particularly for low and middle-income wage earners. Enhancing the capacity of the SA Revenue Service continues to be a key priority in the Budget. Spending on public infrastructure is expected to grow by 8,8% a year in real terms over the next three years, boosted by several public- private partnerships, and other projects of public enterprises and extrabudgetary Government agencies.

Following several years of consolidation, the budget deficit was brought down to 2% of GDP last year. A deficit of 2,3% is projected for the current year. It is anticipated that the deficit will increase to 2,6% of GDP in the next fiscal year, before falling to 2,2% by the end of the new Medium- Term Expenditure Framework period.

At this stage, preparatory work for Telkom’s initial public share offer is well advanced. But we recognise that the regulatory and institutional work that needs to be completed is formidable and market conditions are at present unattractive. For budgetary purposes, we have shifted the anticipated proceeds to the fiscus to the next year.

Despite the moderate increase in the budget deficit expected next year, debt will continue to fall as a share of GDP, and debt service costs will continue to be reduced as a proportion of Government’s expenditure, releasing resources for productive purposes. Details of the revised budget framework and the outlook for revenue and tax policy are set out in chapters 3 and 4 of the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement. The new framework provides for an increase in spending over the forward estimates published in the 2001 Budget of R8,9 billion in the new fiscal year, and R11,8 billion in the year thereafter. An additional R13,3 billion will be made available to departments and provinces in the fiscal year that ends on 31 March 2005, above the baseline 6% increase over their 2003-04 estimates.

The national budget framework reflects a large part, but not all, of Government’s spending commitments. The Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement summarises the accounts of our social security funds, which fall outside the main Budget numbers. In addition, we draw attention to a range of new infrastructure projects that will contribute to social and economic development in the years ahead, which will be largely self-funding, and hence are outside of the main Budget. These include water projects under consideration, such as the Skuifraam Water Scheme to supplement water supply to the Western Cape, and further developments in several other regional water schemes. Negotiations have been completed for the ``platinum highway’’ toll road concession, linking the N4 north of Pretoria with Botswana. A substantial rehabilitation and realignment of the East Coast road linking East London, Umtata, Port St Johns and the Port Shepstone-Durban highway is under review. We should also add Port St Johns to Lusikisiki. [Laughter.]

Industrial development zones being planned include the Coega port near Port Elizabeth, Richards Bay and East London. A gas pipeline from Mozambique to South Africa is a major investment to ensure an affordable energy source for Southern Africa over the next 20 years. The rehabilitation of the Rail Commuter Corporation’s rolling stock is in progress. A commuter rail link is planned for the Khayelitsha community in Cape Town. A high-speed rail link between Johannesburg and Pretoria is under investigation. Investment in telecommunications will be boosted by the recent issue of a third cellular network licence, the proposed issue of a second national operator licence and further upgrading of Telkom’s network and services, following its public share issue. New emergency call centres are being built by the Department of Communications in Cape Town and Johannesburg.

In some of these projects, notably the toll road concessions and further investment in telecommunciations, private investment will provide funding through direct equity participation and public-private partnerships. In other cases, the funds will be raised against the balance sheets of our public corporations. Taking these investment plans into account, however, the consolidated public sector borrowing requirement is expected to remain modest over the next few years, rising from an estimated 1,65% of GDP next year, to about 2,4% in the third year of the new Medium-Term Expenditure Framework.

Our fiscal framework also provides for a marked increase in investment in human resources. Education remains by far the largest category of spending on the consolidated national and provincial budgets, rising from an estimated R58,6 billion this year to over R70 billion projected for the third year of the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. In addition, the national Budget now includes the skills development programme funding through a payroll levy on employers. In its first year, R970 million was transferred to the National Skills Fund and Sectoral Education and Training Authorities or Setas, and this year about R2 billion is expected to be transferred out of available funds of about R3,4 billion.

The funding for skills development is now obviously in place. For grant disbursements to accelerate, employers need to take up the opportunities available. Our strategy rests on a vibrant partnership between Government, employers and trade unions. The challenge here is to see skills development not just as a tax to be paid, but as an investment in future productivity and growth. Adding further to this investment in people, it is proposed that the wage incentive announced in the 2001 Budget should initially take the form of a tax allowance to employers for learnership agreements entered into in terms of the new skills development and qualifications framework. More details and draft legislation will be released by Sars, the national Treasury and the Department of Labour before the end of the year. The allowance will be retained for the next five years to enable learnership programmes to attain rightful place in our human development strategy, and to contribute to the creation of new work and training opportunities.

Against the background of the substantial reforms undertaken in the past two years, the 2002 Budget will herald a period of consolidation in tax policy. The personal income tax structure will again be lightened. Investment incentives amounting to R3 billion over the next four years will take effect. Further amendments to the list of public benefit activities will extend the range of organisations qualifying for tax exempt status. During the course of next year, a thorough review of the tax treatment of retirement savings will be undertaken, some of the shortcomings of the income tax treatment of the banking sector will be addressed, and effective tax rates in other sectors will be reviewed. Our co-operative work with other Southern African countries on customs administration, tax incentives, and sharing lessons in respect of tax reform and building effective tax revenue administrations will continue. But the broad parameters of the tax law are now in place, and taxpayers can arrange their affairs with confidence in both the structure of the tax code and the steadily improving capacity of the revenue authority, to ensure its impartial and effective administration.

On the strength of a sound budget framework and robust revenue performance, we are able to plan for a bold expansion of public expenditure over the next few years. In shaping the policy framework for the 2002 Budget, Cabinet has been clear that addressing poverty and vulnerability remain a central challenge in setting budget priorities, preparing spending plans and building on our RDP achievements over the past seven years.

Spending on social services continues to account for over half of consolidated national and provincial noninterest spending, amounting to R131 billion in the current year. In strengthening social service provision, we are able to target more resources to services that directly influence the lives of people in our communities. By spending these moneys wisely on schools and higher education, primary health care and hospitals, social grants, welfare services and housing, we are able to open up opportunities for economic development and reduce the physical and economic vulnerability of our communities.

Over the next three years, spending on social services will grow by R15 billion, with growth averaging 8,7% a year for welfare services and 8,2% for health services. Directed largely towards provincial governments, this money will enable us, firstly, to put money in the pockets of the poor, by increasing the number of children benefiting from child support grants to 3 million and providing inflation-related increases in the value of all social grants. Nobody notices this. [Applause.] Secondly, it will enable us to build better homes for more people as we increase the size and quantity of housing subsidies that are granted to people with low incomes. [Applause.] Thirdly, it will enable us to strengthen our capacity to provide health care services that respond appropriately to the challenges of HIV/Aids, tuberculosis, malaria and other health needs of our people. [Applause.] Fourthly, it will enable us to extend initiatives to improve the quality of education, through strengthening early childhood programmes and those aimed at learners with special needs. [Applause.]

Spending on economic services and infrastructure rises sharply up to 2004- 05, reinforcing the commitment we made in February’s Budget, to expand the economic infrastructure and build skills in the economy. Additional funding will go to a broad range of programmes, including a targeted subsidy for the Post Office, recognising its importance in providing universal access to essential communication services, and stepping up the national funding of the electrification programme, to expand connections in rural areas over the next few years. [Applause.]

Funding will also go to investment in rail infrastructure and increasing subsidisation of commuter bus services, facilitating access to safe and affordable public transport, investment in municipal water and sanitation services, increasing access to clean safe water and sanitation facilities, rehabilitation and maintenance of district and provincial roads, enhancing economic activity in rural areas in particular, and some provision for the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg next year.

Justice, protection and security services will see growth of about 6,7% a year over the MTEF period. Funding will be provided to phase in an additional 6 000 policemen and policewomen and to strengthen key court administration functions. Physical security at courts has been stepped up and additional allocations for vehicles, information technology and maintenance of infrastructure have been made to the Police Service. [Applause.]

Within the administrative services cluster, increased allocations are proposed for Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs and the SA Revenue Service next year, and provision is made in the outer years of the MTEF for the 2004 elections - we hope it is not sooner, but at this stage the 2004 elections.

The MTBPS sets out a division of revenue for the 2002 Budget in which an additional R4 billion goes to provinces next year and R5,4 billion in the year thereafter. Reorganising the critical role of provincial departments in providing social services to citizens, the provincial share of total allocations rises from 55,8% this year to 56,4% in 2004-05. A marked increase in local government allocations is proposed, raising its share of the national Budget to 4,3% in the last year of the MTEF.

The final chapter of the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement summarises the intergovernmental budgetary framework. In addition to the equitable share allocations to provinces and local government, a range of conditional grant programmes provide earmarked funding for priority services or infrastructure investment programmes.

The Budget Council has advised that the weight for the social welfare component in the equitable shares formula should be increased by one percentage point, taking into account increased spending in this sector and the importance of sustaining adequate funding levels for the phasing in of the child support grant. The economic component will be decreased by a percentage point. In addition to this change, updated enrolment data has been used in calculating the education component of the formula. The phasing in of the present formula will be completed in the year 2003-04.

Following a careful review of the health sector grants, it is proposed that central hospitals and redistribution of specialised services should be combined into a new national tertiary services grant. It will provide a more equitable funding framework for tertiary health care and will recognise tertiary services in 27 hospitals in all nine provinces, whereas just 10 hospitals were included in the previous framework. [Applause.] A new development component is also added to the health professions training and development grant, to fund medical specialists and registrars for underserviced provinces. I think everybody should applaud this. [Applause.]

Further steps in the rationalisation and redesign of the local government funding framework are also outlined in chapter 6 of the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement. The equitable share will increase in the years ahead, providing additional support for the delivery of free basic services and ensuring that all municipalities are able to maintain sound administrations.

Allocations for municipal infrastructure are set to increase by some 18% a year over the MTEF period, rising to R4 billion by the fiscal year ending 31 March 2005. This will primarily go towards basic infrastructure in low- income neighbourhoods. Transfers to support municipal capacity-building will also grow strongly, focused mainly on financial management reforms and development planning interventions. A discussion paper detailing the proposals for the 2002 Division of Revenue Bill will be released this week, providing an early framework that will allow provinces and municipalities to plan their 2002 budgets properly and begin putting capacity in place to implement new projects and development programmes.

As in the past, the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement is a broad outline of a budget. It does not contain all the joints and ligaments. Within this framework provinces and national departments still have to complete the details of their budgetary planning and there may be further adjustments to some of the numbers. But, members of this House will appreciate that taking into account the slowdown in the international economy and in our own growth rate that has been experienced this year, it is that much more critical that our allocations should be well targeted and our spending programmes should be effective and well managed.

The Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement is intended to assist Parliament and the people to understand the economic context, the policy considerations, the constraints, the options, the plans and the spending programmes that make up the overall budget framework. I know that in exploring this framework and taking further its proposals and suggestions, the brand-new Budget Committee of Parliament has a unique and most challenging opportunity to contribute to the shape of our fiscal and budgetary future. I know that it will live up to this challenge fully, and I would like to thank Madam Speaker and the chairperson of the counterpart in the NCOP for taking the lead in this exciting new parliamentary initiative.

Finally, my thanks are due to the President, the Deputy President, the members of the Ministers’ committee on the budget, colleagues in Cabinet and the MECs for Finance in our provinces for their many contributions through long and robust engagement with policy choices, development challenges and spending options that lead, each year, to this statement.

I am exceedingly grateful to the staff of the national Treasury and Sars for their diligence and professionalism, for the quality of the advice that the Deputy Minister and I receive. I hope that all members of Parliament share with me in expressing appreciation for the quality of documents prepared by our staff, to enable us to exercise our responsibilities for decision-making. [Applause.]

Lastly, I want to thank everyone involved in Parliament’s budget reform task team, especially the hon M J Mahlangu, for the close collaboration and for the establishment of the new Budget Committee. [Applause.] I wish the members of the committee every strength. I know the work will be hard, but the work will be exciting and provide an opportunity for accelerated learning. And thank you to all members, for their patience in hearing me out this afternoon. [Applause.]

I have pleasure in placing before the House the Adjustments Appropriation Bill, the Adjusted Estimates of National Expenditure for this year, the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, and, since it has not been done formally previously, the Intergovernmental Fiscal Review, 2001. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! You may get more universal appreciation of the benefits of your Budget if you gave more tangible forms of this, in the form of apples, for example. [Laughter.]

The Bill, together with the introductory speech and papers tabled, referred to the Portfolio Committee on Finance for consideration and report.

The Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement referred to the Joint Budget Committee.

                        ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY

                             (Statement)

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Madam Speaker and hon members, Arrive Alive! On 20 November this year, that is next month, I will be presenting to the public our new road safety strategy which is entitled, ``The Road to Safety 2001-2005’’. This strategy represents an important intervention in our country’s whole approach to road safety and it is designed to address fundamental issues relating to safety on our roads.

The strategy is a product of over 18 months of intensive consultation with the transport sector, technical innovators and civil society organisations. We think that the strategy is solid and it already has strong industry support behind it. Its fundamental approach is to build partnerships and a sense of joint ownership at every level.

In the strategy document, we started out from the absolute basics, facts and questions. For example, it is a fact that drivers drive on roads. How qualified are they to drive, and what are their attitudes? Pedestrians walk along and cross our roads. How well are they trained and educated to do these, apparently, simple things? Drivers drive in vehicles. How fit are these vehicles to be on the road? What is the condition of our road infrastructure? Where, when and how do most of the crashes on our roads take place? How do we get the right combination of forces to the right places at the right times?

Then we also asked: Where are our enforcement and regulatory systems failing? What are the key issues that have, in the past, given rise to public cynicism about the possibility of winning the battle for safety? How do we fight against widespread aggression, irresponsibility and contempt for the law amongst many of our road users? And, finally, how do we convince our people that the battle is winnable? How do we build the critical mass of pubic support that will lead to a new culture of voluntary law compliance, responsibility and mutual respect?

The strategy document, ``The Road to Safety’’, asks all these questions and gives us a framework for answering them positively. It does not pull any punches about what is wrong with the systems and structures that we have relied on until now. It shows how they can and must be corrected and transformed.

``The Road to Safety’’ challenges all three spheres of government, the transport industry, civil society organisations and each and every individual South African to come to the party. It proposes a combination of Government intervention, legislative change, technological innovation, industry self-regulation, public-private partnerships and passenger and community empowerment initiatives. In short, the strategy says that the responsibility for safety on our roads belongs to all of us, and that each one of us can make a contribution.

I want Parliament to be aware of the coming launch of The Road to Safety'' strategy which will take place on 20 November 2001. In a few words, let me give the House some highlights of the defining features of The Road to Safety’’ strategy document. The strategy addresses driver competency, vehicle fitness, pedestrian safety, conditions of infrastructure and management information. ``The Road to Safety’’ gives strategic direction while the Arrive Alive campaign is the operational arm to implement the strategy. The focus of Arrive Alive remains law enforcement, communication and education.

As part of implementing ``The Road to Safety 2001-2005’’ strategy, my department has, for example, budgeted and commenced with upgrading of the driver’s licence, testing centres, vehicle testing stations, development of road safety education material, streamlining of adjudication processes and gathering of accurate management information.

What I want to say today is that from now on, The Road to Safety'' is our guide to action and commitment, while Arrive Alive continues stronger, more focused, more concentrated on its core operational functions of enforcement and communication, 365 days a year, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Just as our whole aim in theThe Road to Safety’’ is to get proposals off paper and into real concrete, jointly-owned projects, so in Arrive Alive we want to show members what we have already started to achieve by making a clear separation between strategic reform and day-to-day operations.

Arrive Alive plans now have to be developed in strict accordance with the national plan, and all key operational action plans must follow the logic of this plan. To qualify for funding, all provincial and local traffic authorities must submit detailed monthly reports on expenditure and programmes undertaken.

In terms of this performance-based system, I can give members some sense of the direction enforcement and communication took over the eight-month period from the beginning of November 2000 to the end of June 2001: R30,6 million was spent out of the support budget provided by the Road Accident Fund on Arrive Alive as a whole. Almost R20 million of this was spent on law enforcement, R10,6 million on equipment and R8,8 million on officers’ overtime.

More than 1,4 million person-hours were spent on carrying out 155 586 law- enforcement actions. Just over 2 300 000 notices for traffic offences were issues over the eight-month period at an average of 291 000 per month. Roughly, R11 million was spent on road safety communication programmes, about R5 million on national campaigns and about R6 million on provincial campaigns.

A consumer survey carried out for my department found that Arrive Alive enjoyed a recognition rate of around 87% of all South Africans in both urban and rural areas. A clear majority of respondents said that the campaign had made them think significantly more about road safety issues.

I see all these results as promising beginnings, no more and no less. It will still be some time before consolidated crash and fatality statistics for the years 2000 and 2001 come through. Unfortunately, information on statistics still remains a problem. These statistics will provide the acid test of whether these actions have in fact been more effectively targeted than in the past, and whether public recognition and approval of Arrive Alive has begun to translate into measurably improved road user behaviour.

As I said a moment ago, ``The Road to Safety’’ will have a critical role to play in cleaning our systems from the bottom up, in a way that it is not possible for Arrive Alive to do as a campaign. A very important issue that the strategy addresses is co-operation with other Government departments, different spheres of Government, communities, other institutions and the private sector.

My department is currently engaged in a mobilisation campaign aimed at achieving sustained co-operation and full participation of all organisations and individuals who may want to contribute to the common objective of ending the carnage on our roads. This mobilisation process will continue beyond 20 November, the date of the public launch of ``The Road to Safety 2001-2005’’. With regard to this consultation programme, I can inform the House that we are to meet the trade unions, civic organisations, the religious, sporting and youth sectors, women’s organisations and students’ organisations. All of them will be consulted and mobilised to participate in the campaign to achieve safety on our roads.

In concluding this presentation, let me say that, given the fact that this House will be going into recess on 16 November and as I will not be able to make the announcement or make available the strategy document on 20 November, I respectfully invite hon members to join hands with us by using this time to rally the support of our constituencies across the length and breadth of our country. I appeal to hon members that when the House goes into recess, they should devote some time to road safety issues. This will ensure that our people are made aware of the need for them to participate and accept responsibility for their own safety, and ensure that we have better respect for law and order on our roads.

I want to thank hon members in advance for their contributions in this regard. Let me also point out that people from my department are on hand in the foyer of the Old Assembly Chamber displaying literature. There are young ladies there who will be only too happy to furnish members with information and documentation. So when hon members leave this House today, please pay a visit to the displays there and take possession of some of the literature which is available at these displays.

These documents help us to outline some of the major things that we can do to promote road safety. They also give a foretaste of what is contained in the strategy document itself. So with one eye on the launch of ``The Road to Safety’’ on 20 November this year and with another on the long summer holiday, which I hope will be a good holiday, let me invite members to join us in this exciting new beginning for road safety in our country. Let me at the same time wish members a safe and peaceful festive season and new year. Arrive Alive! [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, you seem generally to be paying little attention to the debates that have been taking place. You are talking to each other, conducting meetings, reading books and magazines, and some people are reading work. I will assume that the work part is all related to the debate. I do not think the other things are. Please, would you focus on the debate and not make as much noise as we have been enduring for the last hour.

Mr S B FARROW: Madam Speaker, once again we have come to that time of the year when all eyes are on the Minister to see how he can effectively bring down the unacceptably high rate of deaths on our roads. We start weighing up the effects of deaths and accidents on our roads and the costs to this economy. We welcome the Minister’s strategy and want to assure him of the DP’s full support for his strategy and any other initiatives that might be introduced to reduce the carnage on our roads.

We would also like to contribute to this strategy, be it in the way he has suggested, of talking to our constituents about safety when we go into recess or by reinforcing a number of key problems on which we see action taken by the Minister. The first relates to the serious disparities that he mentioned in the strategy, as identified in our road conditions nationally.

It is common knowledge that approximately 15% of road accidents are due to the road environment. The DP, on a number of previous occasions, has brought this issue to the Minister’s attention. There are quite a number of issues, such as minor repairs, on which one can start to get moving now in terms of very limited budgets and labour-intensive operations. We would suggest that this is possibly a way forward in the next six weeks before the Christmas traffic flow increases. If it can in any way save a few lives and reduce the possibility of accidents, then I think the Minister must look into this.

Further related to this, is the need to repair fences that have been damaged or removed. Cattle, goats, sheep, horses and pigs crossing roads are accidents waiting to happen. A concerted effort must be made to elicit the support of rural communities and farmers in order to keep their livestock away from road reserves during this particular period. I suggest that we could possibly use the media, particularly radio and TV, to try to get that message across to them. Strangely enough, this morning in the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, we actually dealt with a Bill which will be passed in this House relating to the identification of animals and cattle by certain tattoos and marks. This will start directing liability towards those particular people that are allowing cattle to walk in the roads.

The second issue relates to driver competence and unroadworthy vehicles. This is also identified in the Minister’s strategy document. These two issues combined contribute to about 85% of road accidents. Both these issues require strict traffic enforcement and I question whether we have the capacity to deal with this, considering some 8 000 traffic police jobs still have to be filled. It is imperative that road management co-operation is implemented as soon as possible in order that national, provincial and local management resources may be pooled and co-ordinated. This is what this body was set up to do. It will not help for this to happen after the event, so to speak. Any effect of reports emanating from the national complaints hotline which the Minister is promoting will fail to bring offenders to book if there are not sufficient traffic officers available to apprehend them. As the Minister said, these culprits need to be brought to book.

Special arrangements must be put in place to ensure visible policing on all our main routes and safe yards identified for impounding and removing any unroadworthy or overloaded vehicles and preventing them from continuing their journey. The Minister’s zero-tolerance initiatives which were mentioned last year need to be put into practice and, if necessary, the Minister of Defence also needs to be consulted to assist with the provision of SANDF personnel to back up our traffic and law enforcement officers at key road checks. I also wish to take this opportunity to wish all our citizens safe travelling over the holidays and encourage them to drive safely and arrive alive. [Applause.]

Mr J H SLABBERT: Madam Speaker and hon Minister, having listened to the hon Mr Farrow’s concerns about pigs and cattle on the roads, it is clear to me that he lives in the former Transkei.

South Africa has a road safety problem. It is not a new problem and in fact it has been around for as long as I can remember. It is ironic that our road safety problem is one of the few things that all South Africans can say is common to us all. Our road safety problem bridges race, class, gender, political and economic divisions like few other public issues. I am sure that virtually all South Africans have, at some point or another, been a victim of poor road safety, or at least know somebody who has been a victim. It is therefore encouraging to see that our Government is taking the issue of road safety seriously, as evidenced by the strategy placed before us by the hon the Minister. The IFP supports the ``Road to Safety 2001-05’’ strategy. The IFP believes that there are three components that are vital to the success of such a strategy. These are political will, law enforcement and public co- operation. The first component is the demonstration of political will to tackle the problem. We believe that the express political will has been aptly demonstrated by Government since 1994. It is the Government’s responsibility and duty to face up to serious problems and challenges confronting all its citizens. Road safety, or rather the lack of it, represents such problems and challenges.

The second component is law enforcement. South Africa has a plethora of laws and regulations governing all aspects of road safety. But, these laws remain mere pieces of paper if they are not effectively enforced. Proper and effective law enforcement requires adequate levels of staffing, equipment, training and application.

Without these aspects being in place, no amount of political will can succeed in addressing the problem adequately. A zero-tolerance approach to law enforcement is what is required. And, I am especially glad that the Minister’s strategy places this aspect firmly in the spotlight. For instance, the laws governing vehicle safety must be rigorously enforced to remove unroadworthy death traps from our roads.

The third component is public co-operation. The South African public represents both road users and road victims. But, if the public does not have a healthy attitude to road safety, very little will come of the strategy. Government can only do so much. The picture must be completed through public co-operation. Road users must change their attitudes with a view to compliance, co-operation and an approach of ``safety first, destination later’’.

In this respect, I want to draw attention to pedestrians. Far too many pedestrians are killed or injured on our roads. The reasons involve both vehicle operators and pedestrians. There is no doubt in my mind that the proximity of built-up areas to major roads contributes to the incidents of pedestrian deaths and injuries, but alcohol abuse also plays a major role. In this respect, pedestrians must take responsibility for their own actions and safety - just as there should be no drinking and driving, there should be no drinking and walking across busy roads.

The IFP believes that if these three components are firmly in place and adhered to, we can effectively tackle our road safety problem and decrease the carnage on our roads. In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the Minister and his department on the issuing of this superb leaflet. [Applause.]

Dr W A ODENDAAL: Mev die Speaker, ek is bevry van die dwingelandy van die bywonerstatus wat ek binne die DA moes verduur. Daarvoor is ek dankbaar. Ek is ‘n man van Afrika, al is ek ‘n bietjie bleek. Daarom sal ek beter oor die weg kom met my bruin en swart broers uit Afrika as met ‘n spannetjie pienk liberaliste. [Tussenwerpsels.] [Applous.] Ek is lief vir Suid-Afrika en ek en my kinders wil deel hê aan die opbou van dié land en die kontinent waaruit ons kom.

Vervoer is ‘n sleutelelement in die toekomstige sosio-ekonomiese ontwikkeling van ons land en ons kontinent. Obstruksie en destruksie bring ‘n mens nêrens. Ons sal die Minister steun in alle inisiatiewe wat goed en reg is. Ons sal egter kritiseer waar dinge verkeerd loop in ‘n gees van konstruktiewe deelname aan die regering van dié land. Ons sal egter altyd poog om werkbare alternatiewe aan die hand te doen wanneer ons kritiseer.

Die padveiligheidsprojek wat ons vanmiddag bespreek, is só ‘n voorbeeld. Die New NP wil die Minister gelukwens met ‘n weldeurdagte program wat deur al die wetenskaplike bestuurstappe gegaan het om daarvan ‘n sukses te maak. Probleme is netjies geïdentifiseer en gedefinieer. Dit het daartoe gelei dat uitvoerbare en werkbare oplossings aan die hand gedoen is wat ook geëvalueer kan word. Dit sal sekerlik tot ‘n daling in padongelukke en -sterftes bydra. ‘n Mens is ook beïndruk deur die omvangryke bewusmakingsprogramme wat beplan word om bestuurders, passasiers en voetgangers tot ‘n positiewe gesindheidsverandering te motiveer. Die voorstelle vir die verskerping van die toepassing van verkeerswette en -regulasies laat egter veel te wense oor. Daar word myns insiens nie voldoende voorsiening gemaak vir die nodige befondsing en die kweek van ‘n wil by verkeersowerhede om meer en beter verkeerslui te werf, beter op te lei en beter te besoldig nie.

Die owerheid sal op alle vlakke groter voorrang moet verleen om ‘n doeltreffende, sigbaarder verkeerskorps te vestig. Die sukses van programme van dié aard hang af van die toepassing van ‘n tweeledige strategie, soos om jou donkie vanaand betyds by die huis te kry. Ou Saartjie sal agter die wortel aanloop wat jy voor haar uithou, maar sy het so nou en dan die lat nodig om die nodige spoed te handhaaf om voor donker tuis te wees. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Dr W A ODENDAAL: Madam Speaker, I am free of the tyranny of the ``bywoner’’ (share-cropper) status that I had to endure within the DA. I am grateful for that. I am a man of Africa, even though I am a little pale. That is why I shall get along better with my brown and black brothers from Africa than with a few pink liberals. [Interjections.] [Applause.] I love South Africa and my children and I want to be a part of building up this country and the continent from which we hail.

Transport is a key element in the future socioeconomic development of our country and our continent. Obstruction and destruction do not get one anywhere. We shall support the Minister in all initiatives that are fit and proper. However, we shall criticise when things go wrong, in a spirit of constructive participation in the governing of this country. We shall always make an effort, however, to suggest alternatives when we criticise.

The road safety project that we are discussing this afternoon is such an example. The New NP wants to congratulate the Minister on a well-considered programme that was taken through all the scientific management programmes to make a success of it. Problems were neatly identified and defined. This contributed to the proposing of achievable and feasible resolutions that can also be evaluated. This will certainly lead to a reduction in road accidents and road deaths.

One is also impressed by the comprehensive awareness programmes that are being planned to motivate drivers, passengers and pedestrians towards a positive change in attitude. The proposals for the improvement of the enforcement of traffic laws and traffic regulations leave much to be desired, however. In my view insufficient provision is being made for the required financing and fostering of a will among traffic authorities to recruit more and better traffic officers, to train them better and to remunerate them better.

The authorities at all levels will have to give greater priority to establishing an effective, more visible traffic corps. The success of programmes of this nature depends on implementing a dual strategy, such as getting one’s donkey home in time tonight. Old Saartjie will follow the carrot one is dangling in front of her, but now and then she needs the whip to maintain the necessary speed to be home before dark. [Applause.]]

Mr T ABRAHAMS: Chairperson, the strategy announced by the Minister this afternoon must be welcomed by all political parties. It will surely serve to reassure many road users. Hon members can be sure that the UDM will continue to raise road safety awareness whenever it is able to do so.

It is hoped that the co-operation of the provincial authorities will become a reality. The festive holidays are almost upon us and it is sickening to realise that, unless road users themselves increase their own awareness of the need to use roads wisely and carefully, the holiday season will again end with thousands of lives being lost, and others being disabled and hospitalised.

Like the previous speakers, I must again draw attention to law enforcement on the roads. The department has amazingly detailed records available of accidents that happened in the past years. It knows, even now, where vehicles are going to crash. Past occurrences records indicate the most likely time of each 24-hour day during which smashes occur; roads in each province where accidents frequently happen whether in rural or urban areas; and that accidents involving a single vehicle are by far most likely to occur on rural roads while head-on collisions are more likely to occur in urban areas.

Through these records, it is known that male drivers are far more likely to be killed or injured in accidents than female drivers and that drivers aged between 20 and 30 have to be closely watched. The department has all this information available and more. It is hoped that this wealth of information will be put to good use in the planning of the Minister’s future strategies, and that it has been passed on to the Road Accident Fund for use in its Arrive Alive plans.

The employment of the data amassed by the department in the planning and implementation of all road safety strategies can serve to greatly enhance the capabilities of the limited number of road safety enforcers who are available. [Applause.]

Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Voorsitter, ek wil vir die agb lid dr Willem Odendaal sê hy mag ‘n bleek seun van Afrika wees, maar voor in die pad is ‘n baie groot slaggat. Dit is een van dié slaggate wat hom in ‘n groot ongeluk gaan laat beland. [Tussenwerpsels.]

Gepraat van slaggate, die VF meen die agb Minister moet sy portefeulje se naam verander. Hy moet nie langer die Minister van Vervoer wees nie, maar die Minister van Slaggate''. Dit maak nie saak hoeveel miljoene en miljarde rande die agb Minister aan projekte soosRy Veilig’’, plakkate en pamflette bestee nie, ons paaie is in ‘n uiters swak toestand. Dit is die een slaggat op die ander. Die VF raai die agb Minister aan om indringend na dié aspekte te kyk.

‘n Tweede aspek is dat die agb Minister moet vasstel watter korrupsie by die uitreik van bestuurderslisensies plaasvind. Dit is waar die probleme lê. Weens korrupsie is mense nie bevoeg om te bestuur nie. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Chairperson, I want to say to the hon member Dr Willem Odendaal that he may be a pale boy from Africa, but there is a very large pothole in the road ahead. One of these potholes is going to land him in great trouble. [Interjections.]

Talking of potholes, the FF is of the opinion that the hon the Minister should change the name of his portfolio. He should no longer be the Minister of Transport, but the ``Minister of Potholes’’. Regardless of how many millions and billions of rands the hon the Minister spends on projects such as Arrive Alive, placards and pamphlets, our roads are in a very poor condition. One encounters one pothole after the other. The FF urges the Minister to give these aspects his serious attention. A second aspect is that the hon the Minister must find out what corruption is taking place in the issuing of drivers’ licences. That is where the problem lies. Owing to corruption people are not competent to drive. [Time expired.]]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, news, be it on television, radio, Internet or newspaper, has found its contents filled with tragedies of horrific accidents which cost lives and so much more. Even traffic reports contain the occasional comment like, ``there has been an accident on such a road causing traffic congestion’’, etc. These are the scenes that plague one’s thoughts - whether reaching home safely is even possible.

Unlicensed drivers, driving under the influence of alcohol and many other issues are the causes of these accidents. It is felt and supported that all efforts to improve road safety and transport would not only put commuters at ease about reaching their destination safely, but would also ensure the continuity of such a safe environment.

Though these safety regulations should be ensured at both private and public level, public transport in terms of trains, taxis and buses should be sternly supervised to ensure the safety of those using these facilities. The MF is confident that the department will address these issues efficiently and effectively in order to make roads and transport safe.

Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, the hon the Minister made mention of the fact-and- question method. I want to do the same today. The fact is that the Minister delivered his speech. The question is: Will his plan work?

We welcome this strategy of the hon the Minister. We got the impression that sometimes Arrive Alive is too sporadic, too much of a hit-and-run approach, and therefore a careful strategic approach to road safety in South Africa must be welcomed. But we must remember that the golden rule is ``structure follows strategy’’.

Daarom is die vraag: watter strukturele veranderinge gaan aangebring word om by hierdie strategie aan te pas? Ons dink in die besonder aan die toestand van ons paaie, en aan die toestand van wetstoepassing in Suid- Afrika. Die belangrikste in so ‘n debat is egter nie dat die vingers na enige iemand anders wys nie, maar dat elkeen na homself kyk. Dit is ‘n belangrike saak: ``partnerships, joint ownership’’.

Dit is ons wat die paaie gebruik. Dit is die Suid-Afrikaanse bevolking wat dit met verantwoordelikheid moet doen. Daar is ‘n toenemende tendens van ``road rage’’. Kom ons wees maar net, op die pad ook, as mens tot mens teenoor mekaar, konsidererend, en dit sal verbeter.

Ons dank die Minister en wens hom baie sterkte vir sy ``Road to Safety’’ program. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Therefore, the question is: What structural changes are going to be made to adapt to this strategy? We are thinking in particular of the condition of our roads, and of the condition of law enforcement in South Africa. However, the most important point in such a debate, is not that fingers should be pointed at anyone, but that everyone should look to him or herself. This is an important matter: ``partnerships, joint ownership’’.

It is we who make use of the roads. It is the South African population that has to do this with responsibility. There is an increasing tendency towards road rage. Let us be considerate towards one another, on the road as well, and this will improve.

We thank the Minister and we wish him every success with his ``Road to Safety’’ programme.]

Mr A R AINSLIE: Chairperson, as the Minister indicated, ``The Road to Safety’’ strategy is a successor to a long line of increasingly successful road safety policy initiatives.

In 1994, the ANC-led Government inherited unco-ordinated fragments of road safety policy. It was the RDP that began the process of formulating a coherent approach to road safety, leading to initiatves such as Strategic 2000 and Arrive Alive, each new initiative building on the experience of its predecessors.

``The Road to Safety’’ strategy has built on the success of the Arrive Alive campaign. It extends Arrive Alive from the focus on peak holiday periods to a year-round road safety campaign. In our engagements with the department recently, we have noted a new-found confidence and enthusiasm on the part of the officials tasked with road safety. Their confidence and enthusiasm are not misplaced. They are born of an approach to road safety that is working. If Mr Aucamp had listened to the Minister, on this occasion and previous occasions, he would know that the policy is working.

In 1998 the department said that it would reduce road fatalities; they did reduce them. In 1999 it said that they would reduce road fatalities further; they did so. In fact I can tell Mr Aucamp that since the launch of Arrive Alive, road deaths have fallen by an average of 7,4% per annum. ``The Road to Safety’’ strategy is based on these achievements, and on a thorough analysis of the policy to date and the data that Mr Abrahams has referred to. Its key goals are sparing lives, preventing injuries, saving money and valuable infrastructure, and making it safer to travel by road.

Also, another key goal is to prevent road accidents. Both Mr Farrow and Mr Groenewald would know that one of the ways the department has decided to do this is in fact to improve general road conditions. Extensive maintenance has already begun on the N2 and the N1. Extensive work has been done on the Kei Cuttings in Transkei and we invite members to see for themselves as they travel through these areas that the work is in fact being done in this regard.

The key goals amount, in other words, to safer and more secure roads with better drivers, more reliable vehicles, better regulated public transport, better educated communities and better protected pedestrians. A key component - Mr Slabbert is quite correct - and a very important part of this strategy is public support and participation. Government alone cannot make our roads safer. The business sector, the religious community, NGOs, community organisations and members of Parliament all have their part to play.

I want to reiterate what the Minister has said today, and invite members of Parliament to become part owners of this strategy. Members of Parliament can play a key role in taking the programme forward. They can familiarise themselves with road safety campaigns. They can promote road safety awareness in their constituencies, ensure that community structures take up the issue of road safety, identify obstacles to road safety and liaise with appropriate Government structures.

We shall watch with keenness the implementation of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act of 1998. The Act is designed to detect aberrant driver behaviour before it results in death or injury on the road, and it is the key to the further and sustainable reduction of road smashes.

Another key component of the strategy is communication. Is enough being done to ensure that the radio stations, in particular, provide daily up-to- the-minute road safety bulletins and also around-the-year programmes designed to educate the public on the need for road safety. We shall be engaging the department on these and other aspects of the programmes, but we have no doubt that ``The road to Safety’’ strategy is on the right road to safety.

The department has invited the Portfolio Committee on Transport to be part of the team to implement the strategy. The ANC component of the committee accepts this invitation with enthusiasm. They can count on our support and, I am sure, the support of all members of Parliament in bringing safety to our roads. Remember, for the sake of your loved ones to arrive alive. Debate concluded.

     SUSPENSION OF RULE 253(1) TO CONDUCT SECOND READING DEBATES

                         (Draft Resolution)

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Mr Chairperson, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

That Rule 253(1) be suspended for the purposes of conducting the Second Reading debates on the following:

(1) Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Bill [B 83 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75) (introduced as Judicial Officers Amendment Bill); and

(2) Criminal Procedure Second Amendment Bill [B 45 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75).

Agreed to. ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF MEDIATION COMMITTEE ON CULTURAL LAWS SECOND AMENDMENT BILL

The Chairperson of Committees announced that the Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 46D - 2000] had been referred to the Mediation Committee on 25 October 2001.

In terms of section 78 of the Constitution, read with National Assembly Rules 225 to 227, nine members of the National Assembly are to be elected by the House to serve in the Mediation Committee. According to the formula contained in the Rules, six members must be from the African National Congress and one each from the Democratic Party, Inkatha Freedom Party and New National Party.

The Chairperson of Committees accordingly called for nominations from the respective parties.

On the nomination of the Acting Chief Whip of the Majority Party, the following members of the African National Congress were elected: Dithebe, S L; Lobe, M C; Masutha, M T; Njobe, M A A; Serote, M W; Tsheole, N M; Montsitsi, S D (alt); Schneeman, G D (alt).

On the nomination of Mr M J Ellis, the following members of the Democratic Party were elected: Opperman, S E; Gore, V C (alt).

On the nomination of Mrs L R Mbuyazi, the following members of the Inkatha Freedom Party were elected: Cassim, M F; Biyela, B P (alt).

On the nomination of Mr J J Dowry, the following members of the New National Party were elected: Van Wyk, A; Rhoda, R T (alt).

          NATIONAL LAND TRANSPORT TRANSITION AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Mr Chairperson, Deputy President and hon members, the National Land Transport Transition Act, which was Act 22 of 2000, was brought into operation on 1 December last year. For the first time in our history, this piece of legislation addresses transport in a meaningful and integrated manner.

The provision of land-based public transport must, in future, be based on demand, with the support of transport plans. This will ensure the provision of services in an equitable and safe manner without fear, violence and intimidation. The taxi and bus industries are well aware of the importance of safety on our roads and every effort will be made to clamp down on road traffic offenders.

Transport planning is the cornerstone of this law and the planning part of the Act was not brought into effect. This decision was taken against the background that the three spheres of government were not ready to implement the requirements of the Act. With planning being the key to the provision of transport and infrastructure, the question could be raised as to why Government could not delay the promulgation of the entire Act until all parties concerned were ready for implementation.

The answer to that, the House will recall, is that the taxi industry was in a great deal of chaos for most of last year. As a result, there was a dire need for Government, both national and provincial, to formalise and legalise the industry. In order for us to do that and do it in a proper manner, the National Land Transport Transition Act was required, and had to be brought into effect as soon as possible.

My department, in co-operation with the provinces, launched the ``Be Legal’’ campaign in June of this year, with the specific aim of addressing the formalisation and legalisation of the minibus-taxi industry. I am pleased to report to this House that the bulk of the illegal operators have already applied for legalisation.

The proposed amendments before the House will have an impact on this process and I therefore agreed with the nine provincial MECs for transport that the closing date, for the adjudication of these applications for legalisation would be extended to April 2002. This does not mean that further applications may be submitted. Applications are not being reopened. It is the adjudication of the applications that is being extended to April 2002.

This will give provinces ample time to finalise the processes and issue operating licences to those operators who have met the said criteria. The finality of this process will undoubtedly lead to a violence-free industry as the safety of passengers is of the utmost importance. The proposed amendments before the House today are required to assist provinces to appoint the operating licensing boards or to authorise provincial permits boards to deal with these applications within the framework of this Act.

I would like to report to the House, too, that for the first time in the history of our country, the taxi industry has a national, democratically elected representative body. We had the privilege of having the Deputy President open the conference of the taxi industry held in Durban from 14 to 16 September 2001, where the South African National Taxi Council was elected. The rewards of a democratic taxi industry are already being reaped, even though we all know that there are still problems.

With regard to the support from the industry for taxi recapitalisation, the industry realises that violence begets violence. This sort of behaviour is driven by greed and the entire industry suffers from lack of progress. The organised industry has condemned the violence and has agreed to fight violence wherever it raises its head. This is the first and most crucial step in transforming the industry. The taxi industry’s co-operation will ensure the success and upliftment of the industry and lead to a safe and reliable public transport system for our people.

I now turn to transport planning. The planning sections of the Act did not come into operation on 1 December 2000 due to various preparatory actions that still needed to be taken. I am fully in support of planning. Indeed, I insist on planning, and I am fully in support of planning being done in a proper manner, and not planning for the sake of planning. Therefore, I am ensuring that my department prepares a sound base for the planning to proceed with minimum disruption. Planning must dictate the delivery of services and development. Everyone accepts the importance of integrated transport planning and its benefits can be seen in many examples throughout the world.

The linkage of transport plans to the integrated development plans is crucial. Various constraints, ranging from the funding issue to capacity, hampered the ability of all spheres of Government to prepare the necessary plans. At the time of the promulgation of the Act the department was in the process of finalising the planning guidelines and is now engaged in the preparation of the planning regulations. It is envisaged that these regulations will be published for public comment by February 2002.

I want to thank the portfolio committee for dealing very thoroughly with these matters. It has expressed its concern about delays and the tendency on the part of some to avoid planning. I want to give the House the assurance that we will not allow that kind of unnecessary delay to take place. Indeed, I have asked the committee of transport officials, which consists of the ten heads of departments of transport, to develop a programme of capacity-building in all spheres of government.

So, we will proceed with the amendment. After the amendment we will be able to finalise some of our planning, and ensure that both the subsidised bus services and our taxi industry are placed on a proper footing. This will also ensure that we promote black economic empowerment and small, medium and micro enterprises in the process. [Applause.]

Mr S B FARROW: Chairperson, the National Land Transport Transition Bill passed by this House last year was, to all intents and purposes just that, a transition Bill.

The original Bill was flawed in a number of areas, which made its implementation difficult, and I think the Minister has explained certain of those difficulties - hence the amendments that we see in front of us today. Having already gone through public hearings in the provinces and the NCOP, a number of serious omissions still exist in this Bill.

However, due to the urgency of ensuring that key issues are in place to meet the urgent commitments that he has referred to, the DP agreed to support the Bill in the portfolio committee on certain preconditions: Firstly, that, as he mentioned, by early next year the portfolio committee would call on the Minister himself to report back to them on how the amendments have impacted on those municipalities which, by virtue of these amendments, could make provision for subsidised service contracts, despite the absence of these transport plans, which are so necessary.

Although many of these municipalities and metros have already complied with these plans, certain glaring anomalies still existed, the most notable being in Gauteng. Therefore, these arrangements must be seen as an interim measure, and the sooner they are completed the better. Without proper transport plans it will be impossible to provide an integrated approach to other modes of transport within our cities and towns.

In this regard clause 11, which amends section 134 of the Act, clearly has ramifications, which could cause major disruptions if not amended. It is paramount, therefore, that some sort of timeframe should be linked to this process, as without this limit the transport plans could very well not be concluded, and could result in a reduced ability by the department and Government to regulate and please the industry.

Secondly, concern must also be expressed regarding the inclusion of ``negotiations’’ in the tender process in clause 3, which amends section

1. This inclusion could allow the tender process to be sidelined and contradict state procurement regulations. ``Negotiated tenders’’ historically have been dogged by bribery and corruption, and need to be avoided at all costs. In any tender design it is paramount that transparency and inclusivity prevail.

Finally, let me talk about the role of Parliament in scrutinising and overseeing executive action. This is clearly spelt out in section 42(3) of our Constitution. The amendment in clause 5 allows for the MEC for transport to appoint members of the Provincial Operating Licensing Board, and determine their conditions of remuneration and services with the concurrence of the MEC responsible for finance in the province, and we understand the reason for it at this point.

History again proves that this could be open to all sorts of abuse, nepotism, jobs for pals and corruption, and the DP intends putting forward strong recommendations at the next review of this Bill, to ensure that the MECs should at least inform their standing committees of their respective legislatures responsible for transport in writing of the appointments made, applications received and a short resume of the applicants appointed. This should be done within 30 days after the said appointment to ensure openness and transparency in the election process.

Finally, the chairperson of the portfolio committee, the hon Jeremy Cronin, has recognised the need for these issues to be re-examined, and has assured all parties that the Minister will be written to in order to ensure that he complies with our request to bring this Bill back to our committee in order to rectify these anomalies identified, and also to report on any progress made.

The DP will be carefully monitoring the progress of this Bill, and we hereby reflect our dissent with regard to the route the Bill took in attempting to deal with a looming crisis in our public industry. Having only seen the Bill on 17 October, we were advised that there was a sense of urgency, and we appreciated that, in ensuring that the Bill went through Parliament during this session.

Despite numerous submissions at our provincial hearings, very little cognisance was taken of these, let us call them, changes. The Minister will need to look at these matters in order that, when it finally reaches the portfolio committee, adequate time is then given, before its reading, for members to apply their minds sufficiently to these amendments.

We will be supporting this amendment, as I said, on those conditions. [Applause.]

Mr J P CRONIN: Chairman, Minister, first of all, let me begin by congratulating the Minister and his Department of Transport, and also the co-ordinator, Rev Farisani, who is the MEC for Transport in the Northern Province, on the very successful National Taxi Conference in mid-September. The conference launched the first-ever democratically constituted national taxi structure in our country, The South African National Taxi Council or Santaco.

I think we are all very well aware that this is a complicated, often robust, and often very fragmented sector. The launch of Santaco is a major achievement. It has required patience, flexibility, determination, and probably the wisdom of Solomon. I would like to congratulate the Minister on that important success of his department.

This particular democratisation of the taxi industry is not unconnected to the amendment before us today. The original National Land Transport Transition Act, which we are seeking to amend in small ways today, was passed in this House last year after quite a prolonged process of public consultation. In fact, those of us who came into the Portfolio committee in in 1999, found a draft Bill which had been knocked about and batted back and forth for some time prior to our engagement with it. The National Land Transport Transition Act was brought into operation on 1 December last year.

A key component of this particular piece of quite complex legislation is the linking of public transport licensing for buses, minibuses and midibuses. Operating licences for those vehicles being linked to transport plans, and the principle position announced by the legislation which we passed last year, is that there shall be no transport operating licence unless the licence route for which one is getting the licence is part and parcel of an integrated transport plan.

We have done that for good reason. The legacy of chaos and relative anarchy that possibly still prevails in public transport in our country is at least partly attributable to the fact that, historically, permits to operate public transport frequently had little or no connection whatsoever to any kind of transport planning. This has resulted in huge anomalies in our country, including, firstly, a lack of transparency regarding the criteria for awarding public transport permits. That, of course, leads to all kinds of dangers of actual or perceived corruption if it is not clear why some get operating licences and others do not.

There was also a practice of awarding lifelong permits to certain bus companies, stifling any competition, not least from emerging, which is to say, mostly black, operators. There has also been, and there still is to some extent, incoherence with regard to many operators pursuing too few commuters on some routes, and not enough transport offered at all on other routes. There is also incoherence in the sense that there is ineffective intermodal co-operation, which means talking together. The ideal situation in transport is that one has, for instance, minibuses and taxis operating over short distances, feeding into buses and train operations which operate the more mass-density and longer routes.

But at present we often have situations where different modes of transport are competing with each other in completely uneconomic ways, rather than re- enforcing each other and complementing each other. Generally, because of this lack of planning and the connection of planning to the licensing of public transport, there has been a complete lack of proactive forward planning in regard to changing settlement patterns, housing development, land-use development, and so on. There has thus been no integration between Transport and the operations of public transport and other forms of planning.

No doubt these kinds of problems which we have inherited, with their real and perceived anomalies and injustices, have also at least been partly responsible for encouraging attitudes of defiance and a culture of illegality in some quarters of the public transport sector. If I am not mistaken, all parties in the portfolio committee strongly support this connection being made between awarding operating licences for public transport and transport planning.

Of course, transport planning needs to be linked to broader infrastructural, urban and other development planning. Therefore, I do not think that this concern for transport planning is just a communist obsession on my part. I was pleased that Mr Farrow is also equally obsessed with the importance of planning; it is not just a communist obsession. I believe that it is a common concern, shared by all parties.

However, as the Minister has indicated, we have, in practice, for the moment, not been able to go ahead with the implementation of the planning aspect of the National Land Transport Transition Act that we passed last year, and this has been for various reasons. There have been quite serious funding and capacity constraints, as one might expect in different spheres of government, especially at the critical municipal level, because that is where the key planning needs to happen and that is where the rational, operating licence process needs to occur. It is at the municipal level where it is particularly required, and it is particularly at that level that there are funding problems and human capacity shortcomings.

The Department of Transport has also taken a bit of time, frankly, to finalise planning guidelines and planning regulations. The delays, I am sure, are attributable to the need to consult a very wide range of role- players, particularly provincial and local spheres of government. We are very pleased to note, and the Minister has indicated this to us today, that this process, from the side of the department, is near to completion now, and that we can expect the publication of these planning regulations for public comment in February 2002. The above combination of challenges has meant that some problems have now started to emerge. The fact that we have not been able to implement the planning dimension of the National Land Transport Transition Act means that there are some practical problems that have started to emerge on the ground. The Act, as I have said, took the correct principled position, ie no transport plans, no awarding of operating licences. That is correct in principle, but because planning in a large number of localities is in various stages of completion, or should we say incompletion, we have a situation in which current operating contracts are starting to expire. These contracts have either to be renewed without any plan, or public transport will collapse entirely in many of these areas.

It is obvious what we must do. We must obviously make interim provisions to allow for the continuation of public transport operating contracts until such time as we can get planning in place. Mr Farrow, and the committee in general when we debated the matter, have indicated that there is obviously the danger that interim measures, windows of opportunity and escape clauses, might through inertia start to become the established norms. The Department of Transport and all the members of the committee are very committed to ensuring that this does not become the case.

The Department of Transport, as the Minister has indicated, has committed itself to accelerating transport planning by fast-tracking on a case-by- case basis. Where there is capacity, and this exists in most if not all metros, the Minister, together with the relevant provincial MEC, will move ahead with phasing in the plans. We do not have to wait for the entire country to complete its transport plans before we can begin to apply the requirements of the National Land Transport Transition Act.

The Minister has also said, and we have noted this, that he has requested his committee of land transport officials, the so-called Colto, which is the 10 heads of departments of transport nationally and nine at provincial level, to develop a programme for capacity-building in all spheres of government. As a committee we are particularly excited by this. We think, with regard to planning, that the problem is not that people do not want to implement plans, but that there is a huge capacity problem, an inability to do this effectively. Therefore a very key role that the national and provincial departments can play is precisely in developing capacity at the local government level. For our part, as a portfolio committee, this is an area in which we intend to be active in our oversight capacity.

We have promised ourselves that, going into the next year, we will actively assess progress made in transport planning, and we will actively assess whether this planning is happening and whether the awarding of operating licences to public transport operators is now being linked to planning, and so forth. As Mr Farrow has correctly indicated, we will certainly engage with the Minister, in the early months of next year, around these matters.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the officials of the Department of Transport who patiently took us through the intricacies of the original National Land Transport Transition Act, and now again they have helped us to understand the proposed amendments. We would also like to thank our colleagues in the NCOP who did most of the spadework in terms of the provincial-level hearings into the proposed amendments we are considering today. I would also like to thank the SA Bus Owners Association (Saboa) who provided us with a thought-provoking input, in the form of a submission to our hearing, and in discussions with them they came to support the amendments that we were proposing, notwithstanding their reservations, which we share with them, about the danger of the undue prolonging of the implementation of transport planning.

Finally, thank you to all the parties in the committee who have supported these proposed amendments. The ANC supports the National Land Transport Transition Amendment Bill. [Applause.]

Mr J H SLABBERT: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon Deputy President, the 1996 White Paper on National Land Transport Policy spelt out the Government’s vision, principles and objectives regarding the public transport policy. Last year the policy, enunciated in the White Paper, was turned into law with the adoption by Parliament of the National Land Transport Transition Act of 2000.

Today, less than a year since Parliament passed the principal Act, we are amending that Act. The IFP understands and accepts that national land transport in South Africa would be severely disrupted, if not thrown into total chaos, if the amendments to the principal Act were not accepted. Clearly, with millions of South Africans dependent on public transport, such an outcome could never be accepted. The IFP will therefore support the National Land Transport Transition Amendment Bill, but we would be remiss in our duty to our supporters if we did not raise a number of concerns about the amending Bill.

Our first concern deals with the passage of the Bill through the parliamentary legislative process. The Bill was adopted with amendments by the NCOP on 16 October 2001, and was then referred to the National Assembly Portfolio Committee on Transport on 17 October for consideration. With 2 November 2001 looming as the deadline for the finalisation of legislation, the portfolio committee was faced with a difficult decision. We either had to accept the NCOP amendments or we could make our own amendments, which would have meant that the Bill had to go back to the NCOP before returning to the portfolio committee again. In all probability the latter option would have meant that the Bill would have stood over until the 2002 parliamentary session. Given the urgency of the situation this outcome could have caused chaos in the transport sector.

The portfolio committee therefore decided to accept the NCOP amendments to the Bill. The IFP supported this decision, because it was clearly the correct one under the circumstances, but we nevertheless have to register our concern that the lack of time resulted in a pressure-cooker situation where the portfolio committee was essentially presented with a fait accompli.

Our major concern is that the Bill removes the requirement for transport plans from the principal Act. Transport authorities will therefore be able to continue with their operations, despite the fact that transport plans have not been drawn up. This becomes problematic in the case of metropolitan transport services. Metropolitan services are highly complex and require advanced and detailed planning. Without detailed transport plans it is doubtful whether different modalities of transport services could be accommodated in a cost-effective, integrated and structured model. If not, it is possible that the customer, the public, may suffer through reduced services or unwarranted cost increases.

Die IFP is bekommerd dat die wetsontwerp kan lei tot die grootskaalse ontwrigting van openbare vervoer. Suid-Afrika se ekonomie kan gróót skade lei as werkers nie betyds by die werk kan uitkom nie, en dit kan baie maklik gebeur as vervoerplanne nie haarfyn uitgewerk en toegepas word nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[The IFP is concerned that the Bill could lead to the large-scale disruption of public transport. South African’s economy could suffered great damage if workers cannot get to work on time, and this could happen very easily if transport plans are not worked out and implemented meticulously.]

The IFP is also concerned about the absence of detailed transport plans for metropolitan areas, which may create a breeding ground for illegal minibus- taxi operators. South Africa has witnessed too much violence and confrontation, as a result of illegal taxi operators, and virtually always to the detriment of the consumer. The question then arises whether the absence of an integrated transport plan for the metropolitan areas would not create a service vacuum that would play into the hands of the illegal taxi operators. Can the Minister assure us that this will not happen? Notwithstanding our concerns, as highlighted above, the IFP will support the amending Bill, as indicated earlier.

Dr W A ODENDAAL: Mr Chairperson, the New NP supports the National Land Transport Transition Amendment Bill. As my colleagues who spoke before me indicated, there were two hiccups but we decided not to delay the implementation of this important Bill. We will let it go through and we will revisit it early next year. They have told the members what the two issues were and we all agreed, even our communist chairperson agreed on all these issues. Therefore, we are thankful for that and we also support this Bill. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

Mr T ABRAHAMS: Mr Chairperson, several adjustments to the National Land Transport Transition Act, which came into force last year, have become necessary. The Act itself was designed to transform aspects of road transport into a system devised by the department.

The UDM finds no reason to withhold its support for changes to the transition Act - changes which obviously serve a facilitating purpose. We have, however, the same reservations as those that have been so adequately expressed by the IFP, through Mr Jan Slabbert.

The most important reason for our wholehearted support of the amending Bill is that we would not like to have commuters unnecessarily disadvantaged, even during an interim period, simply because operators are obliged to discontinue their services due to legal technicalities. Further, while the UDM has misgivings about the manner in which the Government plans to transform the taxi industry, particularly, the party is acutely aware of the need to continue to meet, undisturbed, the daily needs of the commuter, especially during periods of change.

It is becoming clear to increasing numbers of South Africans that if our country, our beautiful South Africa and its people, is to become a world- class nation, we will have to work hard and do it ourselves. The growing number of industrious and resourceful people must not be unduly handicapped by erratic public transport.

It is hoped that the task of converting permits to operating licences will proceed apace and that the authorities, at all levels, will at all times keep the commuter uppermost in their mind. The role of the provinces in the transition process is critical. Finally, I would like to thank the officials for the sterling services that they have delivered and we wish them every success in the implementation of this amending Bill.

Miss S RAJBALLY: Mr Chairperson, transport, be it public or private, gets each and every one of us to our destinations daily; be it for business or pleasure. With its vast use and infinite need, the industry requires much planning, organisation, structuring and regulation. This Bill appears to do just that, by addressing issues like creating appropriate institutional bodies, planning, regulating competition and the restructuring of transport modes, attending to sustainable funding and inculcating effective transport law enforcement.

The MF applauds the department for the achievements made in this Bill and hopes that both private and public entities will make their efforts where they are needed in activating this Bill to best advantage. The MF supports the National Land Transport Transition Amendment Bill. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Chairperson, hon members, I would like to express my appreciation to all members of the House and all those who participated in this debate, for their support for the Bill and for the very constructive points which were raised during the course of the discussion.

I want to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee and all members of the portfolio committee. I am blessed with a portfolio committee which is very supportive and knowledgeable. All members serving in the portfolio committee make a very positive contribution to the transport processes in which I am engaged. I also want to thank my officials for their work because they have done outstanding work in this regard.

In conclusion, I just want to give the House the assurance that my approach to the National Land Transport Transition Act is that it is a transitional measure and we must come back to this House, obviously to the portfolio committee, with a measure which is permanent in nature - a national land transport Act. In due course, we will be coming to the House with such a piece of legislation.

The department is working on this because planning for transport is absolutely essential. That is why I am very sensitive to the concerns which have been expressed in this House, by all members of the House, that we must make sure that the amendment currently before the House and its implementation will not lead to a situation where we abandon the need for transport planning.

Transport planning is also uppermost in my own mind because I believe that, both in respect of transport infrastructure and the provision of transport services, planning is essential. I would like to restrict myself to land transport, which is what we have been discussing. We have been focusing very much on ensuring that we do develop an integrated public transport system.

Taxis are important, our buses and our trains are important. Our focus is to ensure that we maximise on the availability of this resource in the most effective manner possible. For example, we would like to see more of our people use trains. Therefore, we have a programme to improve stations, coaches, our signalling systems and to make train transport more attractive for our people.

At the same time, there is this limitation that our commuter train service only serves the six metropolitan areas in our country. So, there are large parts of our country which are not served by commuter rail. Therefore, a large part of our country, especially in our rural areas, depends on road transport. So, our subsidised bus service and minibus-taxi service are all important. There needs to be an integration of these transport modes so as to ensure that maximum transport services are available to our people.

I can also indicate to this House that, as I stand here today, already over 70 intermodal transport exchanges have been built in different parts of our country. This is in line with good planning and we intend to extend the intermodal transport exchanges all over the country so as to ensure that that kind of integrated approach to transport wins the day in our country.

I can give the House the assurance that we will not allow the implementation of the amendment to play into the hands of illegal taxi operators. Indeed, our programme for the legalisation of the taxi industry envisages that, once the legalisation process is complete and the industry has been legalised, tough action will be taken against illegal operators. I know that it is not going to be an easy matter and it is not going to happen overnight but, in all provinces, the law-enforcement authorities are gearing themselves up so that they can deal effectively with this kind of situation.

We are also, in terms of planning, looking at the road development plan for South Africa. Members of this House have expressed concern about the state of our roads. Our national roads are good but much of the rest of our road infrastructure does need attention. Our road infrastructure has declined. So, our road development programme will be a matter which we will be bringing to the House as well. So there is a great deal of planning that is necessary. We need to come back and seek the wisdom of the House, and I can assure members that early next year we will be back here again.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

                   MEDICAL SCHEMES AMENDMENT BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson and hon members, I wish to thank you for the opportunity of presenting the Medical Schemes Amendment Bill. Many members will recall that the Medical Schemes Act was passed in 1998 as a response to significant challenges faced by the medical schemes industry. The principal Act aimed to achieve four main objectives: firstly, to reintroduce community rating in medical schemes; secondly, to improve access to medical schemes of people who were previously excluded; thirdly, to mandate a prescribed minimum benefit package to ensure that all members have essential hospital cover; and fourthly, to improve financial management and governance of the schemes.

At the time the Act was passed, there was considerable opposition in the medical schemes industry. Sceptics predicted that the Act would not achieve its objectives and would instead compromise the viability of many medical schemes. Although the Act has been in operation since January 2000, I believe that there are already signs that our critics overreacted. The audited returns provided to the Council of Medical Schemes are beginning to show the early impact of the Act.

Firstly, membership has not decreased as the prophets of doom had suggested it would. More importantly, there is evidence that the proportion of members from vulnerable groups such as the elderly has actually increased. It is difficult to say precisely which features of the 1998 Act had this effect. But, it is likely that the amnesty provision played a part. This allowed members to join schemes at an advanced age without premiums being imposed.

Of course the success of our legislation must be measured not only in terms of the growth of membership, but also in the composition of membership. Medical schemes are rooted in the notion of cross-subsidisation between members who are young and healthy and those who are older and have a much greater need of health care. We will be watching this aspect very keenly over the next few years.

Secondly, analysis suggests that the greatest pressure on medical schemes costs is not from claims, but from spending on administration. In the year 2000, income from contributions increased by 7% and claims went up by just 6%, but administration costs grew by 26%. This evidence dispels the myth promoted by the industry that the introduction of the prescribed minimum benefits would result in an increase in claims.

It is a matter of concern that there is a significant difference between open and closed schemes when it comes to the level of administration costs. The open schemes have much higher administration costs, and we need to understand the reasons for this so that we can institute appropriate action to curb this trend.

Furthermore, the solvency ratios of schemes have not taken a nose dive as was predicted by those opposed to this legislation. In fact, the average solvency level for all schemes was 20,5% in the year 2000, which is far higher than the statutory requirement of 10%. But again we see significantly different patterns in the open schemes from those that prevail in the closed schemes. The solvency level for open schemes averaged 13% last year and about one third of these schemes were below the statutory requirement. We are monitoring this situation extremely closely with a view to possibly intervening. Experience with the Act has not only vindicated our policy position, but also taught us some valuable lessons. The amending Bill that I am presenting to members today is a response to some of these lessons. The Bill seeks to strengthen the Medical Schemes Act of 1998 in a number of ways. It seeks to improve protection for members. It does this by addressing the problem of reinsurance by revisiting the provision of waiting periods, by specifically protecting members against discrimination on the grounds of age.

It seeks to make the regulator, viz the Council of Medical Schemes, more effective by providing a more frequent report to ensure early detection of problems and by addressing the question of inspections. It reduces unnecessary red tape that imposed unduly onerous conditions on medical schemes. Amongst other things, it seeks to promote efficient administration and good governance of medical schemes by insisting on the independence of individuals in key positions. It also introduces mechanisms to address problematic practices in the marketing of medical schemes and brokerage of services.

Inevitably, amending legislation does some tidying up of definitions and clumsy phrasing and eliminates duplication. The amending Bill is no exception. It is impossible in the time allocated to me to cover every detail of what is fairly technical legislation, so I am going to be selective and highlight the thinking behind some of the provisions.

Let me first deal with the question of waiting periods. A waiting period refers to the period between joining a scheme and enjoying the full benefits of that scheme. They were permitted in the principal Act in order to protect schemes against adverse selection, viz opportunistic behaviour by some medical scheme members who may delay joining a scheme until they require expensive medical treatment and, having had this treatment, simply leaving the scheme afterwards.

The clause in the principal Act is flawed in that it goes beyond protecting schemes from adverse selection. In some instances, it has resulted in schemes imposing waiting periods on members who do not necessarily engage in opportunistic behaviour. We have inserted two definitions of waiting periods in the amending Bill. These stipulate the circumstances in which general and condition-specific waiting periods may be imposed on members.

The underlying principle is to consider the member’s history of membership in other schemes and to use this as a basis for determining whether waiting periods may apply. In addition, the Bill stipulates that members who transfer from one scheme to another may not face a waiting period in respect of the prescribed minimum benefits. It also provides that members who change schemes because of a change in employment or because their employer changes or terminates schemes may also not face waiting periods. These provisions aim to strike a fair balance between protecting schemes from adverse selection and protecting new members from inappropriate use of waiting periods. On the issue of reinsurance, I am sure that members have come to appreciate, in the last few weeks, the heat that this issue generates in the industry. Undoubtedly this issue has been the most contentious provision in our Bill. We believe that the formulation that we have now agreed on is a significant improvement on previous versions. It not only satisfies all our policy concerns, but also addresses the concerns expressed by the industry about the need to strengthen the powers and responsibilities of medical schemes’ trustees.

We have tried to include in the law a mechanism that will prevent inappropriate reinsurance arrangements rather than simply seeking to deal with the consequences of such arrangements. Accordingly, clause 5 stipulates that the board of trustees of a scheme must furnish particular information to the Registrar of Medical Schemes before entering into a reinsurance contract. The registrar must express any concerns he or she may have with regard to the proposed contract within 30 days. The board of trustees is in turn obliged to address any concerns raised and make full disclosure of the reinsurance contract, failing which the whole contract will be null and void.

This formulation allows the registrar to keep track of all reinsurance contracts. Raising concerns in respect of such contracts is not in the best interests of scheme members. However, the final decision on whether or not to reinsure is left in the hands of the board of trustees who, after all, must take full judicial responsibility for the financial position of their schemes. The interaction between the registrar and the trustees is, indeed, a process in which the two processes complement each other and where the expertise of the registrar serves as a resource for the trustees.

The regulation of brokers was another matter which was vociferously debated by some stakeholders during the hearings on the Bill. The portfolio committee supported and enhanced the draft formulation which empowers the Minister to make regulations regarding the conduct and remuneration of brokers. This tightening up of the remuneration of brokers relates to a growing situation where members shift between schemes without any clear gains in terms of benefits. The question, therefore, arises as to whether perverse incentives enjoyed by brokers are responsible for this unnecessary movement that pushes up administration costs.

The Bill strengthens consumer protection by restricting the marketing of medical schemes to those individuals and entities that are actually registered as medical schemes in terms of the Act. It also prohibits the conditional selling of medical schemes’ products. The consumer is further protected by additional powers that are assigned to the Minister in terms of the Bill. These include the power to regulate managed health care contracts and to impose penalties on medical schemes or administrators for late payment of claims.

In the area of promoting good governance of medical schemes, the Bill firmly introduces the principle of ensuring the independence of principal officers, trustees and auditors of medical schemes. It does this by prohibiting any broker or person employed by the schemes’ administrators from taking on any of these positions. It further promotes transparency and ensures the independence of the trustees by requiring that trustees must disclose, on an annual basis, any remuneration or benefits accruing to them.

The Bill recognises that the power of the registrar to act constructively in resolving problems that threaten the stability of schemes and assets of the members depends, to a great degree, on effective monitoring and early detection of problems. It is with this in mind that the Bill empowers the registrar to request financial statements from the schemes as frequently as once in every three months and to determine the degree of urgency that applies in getting responses to their queries. It is also vital that the registrar has the power to order the inspection of schemes in order to monitor compliance with the Act. But, we recognise that the registrar’s powers in this regard must be limited in accordance with the fundamental rights as enshrined in our Bill of Rights. Our renewed emphasis on sound governance and fair administration carries a certain price and sometimes creates additional work. We need to be sure that these additional processes are indeed justified, and they are not, we must have the courage to do away with them. I am pleased to say that, on review, we have found a few instances in the principal Act where we have overregulated. We have attempted to correct this in the amending legislation. For example, the process of exempting entities from the provisions of the Act has been simplified and medical schemes are no longer required to get prior approval from the Council for Medical Schemes in order to undertake a number of fairly routine activities.

I cannot conclude this presentation without thanking the Department of Health and the Council for Medical Schemes for the sterling work they have put into the preparation of this amending Bill. The amendments clearly show that they have not lost sight of the ultimate goal of our health system ie to improve access to health care while making it affordable, efficient and effective for all South Africans irrespective of their income level.

The portfolio committee has provided essential guidance and support in seeing this Bill to this stage, and their valuable input is reflected in this last version that I have presented to the hon members. The passing of this Bill would, indeed, be a reflection of the confidence that this House places in this guidance by the portfolio committee. [Applause.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Chairperson, as the Minister said, it is almost three years to the day that the Medical Schemes Act was debated in this House. The then Minister of Health hailed it as an important breakthrough in efforts aimed at expanding access for all people to medical schemes, and again the hon the Minister has today said more or less the same thing.

I would like to say that the DP did not then, nor does it now, doubt that this was an important intention of that piece of legislation. But, we did warn, then, that the consequences of that Bill, passed as it was with virtually no amendments despite serious concerns expressed then by, for example, the Actuarial Society of South Africa and various other role- players in the industry, could be very serious in terms of the negative impact it would have on the ability of schemes to operate. And, we also warned that the Act may, in fact, have the opposite effect on medical schemes than was intended.

I would like to say that it is, therefore, not particularly surprising that the Medical Schemes Act is now being amended to take in some of the very serious problems that the industry has experienced in recent years. The hon the Minister has highlighted some of these, but her reasons, I think, do not always match those given by the industry - the reasons why there have been problems. And, I think that she has chosen to underplay some of the important problems facing the industry. However, I do want to agree with her, to a very large extent, that the issue of reinsurance has been handled in a satisfactory manner but time will tell how successful this Bill will in fact be in this regard.

There do, in fact, remain serious concerns. The Life Offices Association, for example, made the point that the amendments were presented on the premise that the Medical Schemes Act is achieving the policy of broadening access and reducing the costs of private health care as the Minister indicated. But, they also made the point that, in reality, most medical schemes’ members are seeing the cost of coverage increase significantly above the growth of their salaries and above the growth of consumer inflation and are, therefore, being forced to reduce their level of medical scheme coverage. Pensioners are particularly badly affected in that they cannot afford to pay more, but also because of their age and, therefore, their risk, they cannot really afford less medical coverage.

The number of people contacting the offices of the DP, and I am sure other political parties as well, with problems of this nature has increased quite dramatically in the past two years, many with extremely sad tales of how medical scheme subscriptions have spiralled out of all proportion. Certainly, not all amendments put forward by this Bill will address this very serious concern.

But the DP does acknowledge that progress has been made in improving the Act through this amending legislation. What we also appreciate is that the department and the council were prepared to listen to the concerns of the industry and there have been significant amendments to the Bill as a result. The legislation before this House today, is now a great improvement on what it was. My colleague, the hon Mrs Kalyan, will deal with some of these matters.

I would like to say that, perhaps, one of the most significant aspects of this Bill was the way that it was handled by the portfolio committee, and I am sure the chairperson will be very interested in that. Never, in the past five years, has the chairperson of that committee been as accommodating as he was during the discussion on this Bill. He has moved a long way from the days when he used to constantly call for the Serjeant-at-Arms to throw out members of the committee who did not agree with his particular point or the way the committee was working. Last week, to our great surprise and pleasure, he was patient, accommodating and really quite pleasant. He is, of course, due to leave us very soon as the Ambassador to Malaysia. I would like to say to him that I am remarkably glad that he used the opportunity that he had with the portfolio committee to hone some ambassadorial skills before he leaves. We wish him well. This will actually be the last speech that I make in this House while he is the chairperson of that committee and, consequently, I do take the opportunity of five very interesting years of working with him to say that we wish him well in his new venture.

In conclusion, while this Bill makes some important changes in the Medical Schemes Act, the Act as a whole does remain a cause for concern and we believe that it will not be long before it is back before Parliament with further amendments. But, nevertheless, since this Bill does seriously address some of the concerns in the industry and improves the principal Act, the DP will support this Bill. [Applause.]

Dr A S NKOMO: Chairperson, health policy is acknowledged the world over as being both complex and fraught with stakeholder interests. For this reason, Government must play a key stewardship role in protecting the public from unfairly losing, or being denied access to, health care. To this end, the World Health Organisation states, and I quote:

The careful and responsible management of the wellbeing of the population is the very essence of good government. For every country, it means establishing the best and fairest health system possible with the available resources.

Quite simply, it is this objective of achieving the best and fairest system that underpins the Medical Schemes Amendment Bill which is before Parliament today.

The old pre-1998 Medical Schemes Act was poorly designed and oriented exclusively towards meeting the needs of a for-profit health system, which was not interested in the needs of our people. It allowed medical schemes to discriminate against groups of people on arbitrary and unfair grounds. This was driven by the need to make quick profits. Clearly, no responsible government can support or justify, or embody in key areas of legislation, approaches to health cover that deny access to health care on the grounds of income or state of health.

As can be expected with all new social legislation of this nature, there was a need to test the new environment and to improve on the legislation after its provisions were tested in practice. This new amending Bill now strengthens the original policy environment and prepares the way for more far-reaching reforms in the future.

Overall, this Bill significantly improves the independence of trustees, and the governance principles create a clear and logical framework surrounding penalties for adverse selection such as waiting periods; it improves the oversight and use of reinsurance agreements; it strengthens and improves complaints procedures; it eliminates the conditional selling of various financial products with medical scheme membership; and it improves the enabling legislation dealing with brokers. These issues are central to maintaining the principles and objectives underpinning the original legislation.

One important aspect of the current legislation is the maintenance of the not-for-profit status of medical schemes. It has, however, become clear, both before the original Act was passed in 1998 and subsequent to it, that reinsurance has been used to circumvent the not-for-profit provisions of medical schemes - witness the shenanigans reported in the Business Report of The Star of Monday, 28 October. Such agreements have been used to pass reserves of a medical scheme to a third party, such that the members lose the ownership thereof. This happens through both the opportunism and the ignorance of many schemes’ trustees. The Registrar of Medical Schemes will now, in terms of the amending Bill, be able to review and anticipate problems with these agreements, prior to them presenting with a problem.

It has also been a concern for many members transferring between schemes that they have become subjected to the unfair application of waiting periods. These have been used less as a method of coping with adverse selection, the purpose for which waiting periods were originally intended, and more to discriminate unfairly against any and all individuals with pre- existing conditions.

It has become very clear that many individuals have waiting periods apply to them purely because they belong to a sicker group, or have a chronic condition, or belong to a particular age group. For this reason the amending Bill limits the application of waiting periods in cases where transfers are not linked to opportunistic behaviour and broadens their application where adverse selection is very likely, such as when someone joins a scheme for the first time. Another important area of regulation dealt with in this amending Bill relates to provisions dealing with medical scheme brokers. Substantial member movement, linked to commission payments instead of member choice, have become a feature of the medical schemes industry. This is called ``churning of members’’. Extensive ongoing commissions are being paid by administrators to brokers merely to prevent them from taking their members elsewhere. This type of behaviour is adding a new layer of unnecessary cost and inefficiency to the medical schemes market. There is a need to develop an entirely new framework for regulating medical scheme brokers, which limits the commissions that can be paid by third parties such as medical scheme administrators, and ensures that those who receive a service from a broker pay for it.

Many of the problems relating to inappropriate reinsurance and poor management arise from conflicts of interest between trustees of schemes, the principal officer and parties with whom the scheme enters into contracts. As a consequence, the Act is to be amended explicitly to exclude all persons who may embody such a conflict. Overall, this will improve scheme governance, and contribute to the better management of schemes.

Of great concern to many service providers is the late payment of claims made by medical scheme administrators. In many cases this results in great hardship for doctors and hospitals, and this needs to be dealt with in legislation. This Bill introduces penalties which will be applied where the payment of claims is delayed without any good reason.

Another important developing feature of the private health system is so- called ``managed care’’. Developments around managed care have to be closely scrutinised in the future. To contain costs, many medical schemes are beginning to use various approaches which, collectively, have become known as managed care. Although desirable as a broad direction, managed care holds many dangers if left unregulated. Patient care can be compromised if appropriate measures are not introduced to ensure that service providers are not encouraged to act in unethical ways to keep down costs. Although such measures are not contained in the current amendments, these issues need to be fully explored in the near future.

The Medical Schemes Act and these amendments must also be seen within the broader context of health reform. Our inherited health system has suffered from many flaws, maybe not in the amount of services but related far more to the manner in which access to these services is governed. Better public services were available to whites only, while private services were available only to high-income earners, the young and the healthy.

Since 1994 extensive restructuring has occurred to improve access within both the public and the private spheres. Nevertheless, there is a need to begin to move the reform process to a new qualitatively higher level. We have to start seeing our total health system as a national asset which should be more effectively utilised for the betterment of all our people. Although each movement towards a more integrated system faces opposition from profiteers, these steps must be taken, and each move forward and each new right that is created must be protected from reversal.

Much is changing in the health system and will continue to change over the next few years. Ultimately, it will be through the stewardship of this Government that a health system will evolve which can embody principles and offer a service that will make us proud. This pride will be in what we can and do provide, rather than in that which we deny to those who are vulnerable and in need.

I commend this Bill to this House and I want to thank the Ministry and the department for the sensitive and across-the-board consultation throughout the processing of this piece of legislation. I also want to thank all the parties for their constructive participation in the legislation when it was being processed. I commend this Bill.

Dr R RABINOWITZ: Chairperson, in 1998 we introduced the Medical Schemes Act with the intention of making medical schemes more affordable and accessible to the masses. At the time the IFP opposed the legislation fearing that it would have the opposite effect. We proposed the following alternative: Introduce a social health insurance whereby the state offers a minimum package at the lowest possible rates and allow this to compete with all the options offered by private industry; regulate to prevent people from joining only when they are old and sick, as this will kill off any medical scheme; and ensure that every person who is working contributes towards some form of medical scheme.

The fundamental principle of any kind of insurance or health scheme is for the young and healthy to cross-subsidise the old and the sick. We also believe it is important to regulate to protect people who are ill before they join from being shut out of schemes. Through the creation of a high- risk pool, a percentage of profits in successful schemes would be paid into a pool to support both public and private initiatives for the seriously and high-cost ill. Aids would be a classic example of such a condition. Our proposals were rejected.

The Medical Schemes Act was adopted and the regulations attempted to introduce waiting periods as ways of discouraging people from joining schemes only when they were old and sick or from using the open-enrolment provisions to hop opportunistically from one scheme to another to get the most out of each scheme and pay less of the costs. Now we are faced with submissions from two camps.

On the one side the Board of Health Care Funders, the Life Offices Association of Southern Africa incorporating over 40% of the market and most of the large insurance companies investing in medical schemes, Parmed’s own administrator for medical schemes, the Hospital Association which wants a healthy industry and the Financial Services Board whom the IFP has always maintained should oversee the financial aspects of medical schemes, all opposed the amendments, the FSB saying that the Council for Medical Schemes should regulate or supervise its members, not manage them. In the opposite camp were the Council for Medical Schemes and its advisers Cosatu.

Extrapolation from statistical charts of both schemes showed opposite trends. As health specialists, we can cope with these contradictions by seeking the advice of financial specialists and all role-players. For this we need time, but we did not have that luxury. We can also recognise the obvious, that contributions are increasing while benefits are decreasing. At best, we are where we were, at worst we are sinking rapidly.

Against this backdrop we debated the amendments to the Medical Schemes Act. Several were necessary and we support them. Three issues that were of major importance to the industry were those of brokers, the powers of the registrar and waiting periods. I will address, due to a lack of time, only the issues of reinsurance and brokers. To neither of these issues, we believe, solutions were found, not for lack of the department trying. They brought us amendments which, unfortunately, we saw for the first time at 09:30 on the morning that the committee met.

The issue of reinsurance is sufficiently complex and contentious to earn comment articles in most newspapers for the last few months. Here the mischief, according to the department, is that some contracts are inappropriate. Reinsurance is legal. Where it is inappropriate, it was suggested in briefings, is in cases such as that of Discovery Health Medical Scheme and Discovery Health. Through this arrangement the not-for- profit scheme is reinsured by the Pty Ltd company in which shareholders make a profit.

I admit it sticks in one’s throat for some people to appear to benefit from other people’s pain. It is not surprising that between the registrar and Discovery there has been much acrimony over the last few weeks. Whether or not the financial activities of a medical scheme are appropriate is surely the decision of an independent and objective financial specialist. I would apply such terms to the Actuarial Society of South Africa or the SA Institute of Chartered Accountants, not the Registrar for Medical Schemes.

An ANC amendment agreed that an independent person with the necessary expertise must evaluate the need for the insurance contract, but the registrar, if he believes that the contract is not appropriate and does not serve members’ interests, can require the scheme to address issues on which he or she is dissatisfied and, if not satisfied with the response, can declare the contract null and void. Time will tell whether the registrar’s first act will be the disbanding of the relationship between Discovery Health and Discovery Health Medical Scheme, a decision, if necessary, we would prefer to be made by the Financial Services Board.

If there is inappropriate behaviour, one wonders why the registrar would not use the existing avenues for illegal or unsafe behaviour to shut down the scheme, as was the case with Medicover 2000. The IFP prefers a positive approach whereby a percentage of the profits of all schemes with financial prowess could be ploughed back into a reinsurance pool for the Aids ill.

As for waiting periods, again, we do not believe that the amendments address the issues satisfactorily. We want people who change jobs or need to change health schemes for reasons other than illness to be entitled to continue to receive cover without waiting periods. We said as much in our amendments. They were rejected in favour of amendments that encourage people to take advantage of the low costs of some schemes to slip into others while their waiting periods are almost over or to pay for a cheap scheme when they are young and slip over into an expensive one as they grow older without the one-year contribution or waiting period.

There is no Midas factor in health care, and this could well be another nail in the coffin of the fading industry and force Government to introduce national health insurance and sink health care entirely. We were extremely unhappy with the speed with which this Bill was processed. [Time expired.] Dr S J GOUS: Chairperson, worldwide medical inflation is normally a few points higher than the average inflation. This can be explained by the fact that new innovation and technology cost more money and patients usually insist on the latest technology and treatment.

In South Africa, however, medical inflation is significantly higher than the national inflation, in fact, almost double. Although technology and the demand from patients can explain part of it, and certainly the exchange rate also plays a role, the very high rate that we experience in South Africa is not that easy to explain. One of the reasons cited is the relatively unstable medical scheme environment. When the Medical Schemes Act was promulgated in 1998, the New NP warned that one of its effects might be that it would make medical schemes unaffordable for the average South African.

The submission of the Council for Medical Schemes portrayed a stable environment with a small increase in access. On closer examination, however, one finds that there has been a significant drop in benefits offered, while at the same time there has been a major increase in contributions. At the same time, the quality of health care in the state sector has declined, and this has forced more patients to look to the private sector for medical care. Administration costs of schemes seem to have increased disproportionately. The effect of managed health care is, at this stage, not very clear, but it is also thought to increase the total cost with less return.

I think the point is that it would appear as if we are heading in the wrong direction and that, very soon, medical schemes would be simply unaffordable for the average South African. The amending Bill that we are debating today addresses some of these issues which are thought to be cost-drivers in the medical schemes environment.

The main issues addressed are the waiting periods, reinsurance and the position of brokers. Waiting periods are necessary to protect schemes from so-called adverse selection. This means that the patient waits until he becomes ill or knows or suspects that he is becoming ill and only then joins the medical scheme. The difficulty lies in trying to protect the public against unfair discrimination in terms of waiting periods by medical schemes, but at the same time, protecting the scheme against adverse selection. One can understand that this is easier said than done. At the moment, the pendulum seems to be slightly in favour of the patients, but ironically, it would appear that it is simply going to cost them more at the end of the day. So the net loser is still the patient or the member of the scheme.

To make things even more complicated, there is a second concept which is known as interscheme adverse selection. This simply means that the patient can move from a low cost benefit option within a scheme to a higher cost benefit option when required or when he realises or suspects that he is going to need increased cover. This is probably the single most dangerous and unpredictable cost driver as far as medical schemes are concerned.

It is even more difficult to protect schemes against this, without discriminating against individual patients. To complicate the matter even more, there are other triggers for which the patient cannot be held responsible, for instance, when he changes from one job to another. The regulation pertaining to waiting periods has now been included in the Bill, which we welcome. Our criticism is that adequate protection in terms of interscheme adverse selection, also known as scheme-hopping, is not adequately addressed.

The second major aspect which is addressed by this amending Bill is the reinsurance issue. There seems to be consensus that reinsurance is necessary in the medical scheme environment, especially for smaller schemes who have to insure against excessive and unexpected losses. There were differences of opinion as to who would ultimately be responsible to determine whether the reinsurance contract is appropriate or not. The Council for Medical Schemes maintained that the registrar should fulfil this function. Many others insisted that it should, at the end of the day, be the trustees of the medical schemes. An input by the Financial Services Board in this regard was very valuable and was taken up in amendments which, at the end of the day, seem quite satisfactory, except for the period of validity of current contracts.

We sincerely hope that this amending Bill will bring more stability to the medical schemes environment and that, at the end of the day, the patient or member benefits the most. In other words, we hope that medical schemes become more affordable for the average citizen. Despite some of these reservations, the New NP shall support this legislation.

Mrs S F BALOYI: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister and members, allow me to congratulate the Director-General for Halth, Dr Ayanda Ntsaluba, the Registrar of Medical Schemes, Mr Patrick Masobe, and his colleagues, Alex and Stephen, for a job well done in bringing these important amendments for consideration to ensure that our policy for providing accessible, cost- effective and efficient services is extended to the previously disadvantaged majority of our people, who had no access to such facilities and benefits before, as this was the preserve of some in the past.

The majority of our people now have equal opportunities to join a medical scheme, as medical schemes may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on stipulated arbitrary grounds, to prevent unfair treatment. The ANC is delivering on its promise to our people. This amending Bill is part of a process of finetuning legislation to ensure transformatory legislation we have passed achieves its objective. This is an historic test. It is not an easy task, but it is important that we do not waver from these challenges, for it is clear that we are succeeding in many areas in changing the delivery of our health care system and services, and thus changing our people’s lives for the better.

The Medical Schemes Amendment Bill represents another important step in transforming our health care system. We all know the problems regarding medical schemes which include rampant expenditure, lack of accountability to members, and the tendency to reduce members’ benefits while increasing administrative costs. I heard the hon Mike Ellis saying that costs are rising. Yes, they are rising because the major part of the funds are going to administrative costs and dubious contracts such as reinsurance.

However, we also know that the Medical Schemes Act which we passed in 1998 is beginning to have the desired impact, in spite of all that has been said by the people sitting on my left hand side. Firstly, there is now more information and transparency, secondly, data from the registrar’s office shows that people who were previously systematically and deliberately excluded are beginning to join medical schemes, and, thirdly, there is no evidence, as the opposition would like us to believe, that young members are leaving medical schemes.

We now also have a Council for Medical Schemes that is fighting on behalf of, and protecting the rights of, ordinary members of schemes. These are significant achievements in the face of the concerted and sometimes recalcitrant opposition. We are now called upon to support the Bill in order to consolidate our gains.

One of the key issues the amending Bill is addressing is that of reinsurance, an issue which is of great concern to us and which the medical schemes industry is trying to protect by all means as witnessed during the public hearings. Reinsurance is a practice undertaken by an insurance company to cover a family, in this case a medical scheme, against unexpected high claims. The ANC supports judicious and appropriate use of reinsurance. However, we cannot and will not sit back and tolerate the abuse of reinsurance. To do so, would be failing the majority of our people who voted for the ANC, and the Government will ensure that this does not happen.

There are many indications that there are some companies which are using reinsurance to strip the medical schemes of funds. This needs to be stopped and this amending Bill seeks to achieve just that. Also of importance is that there should be more transparency and openness in the process of reinsurance. The Bill will achieve this by obliging trustees to report all reinsurance contracts to the registrar to stop inappropriate use of reinsurance.

The Bill clearly stipulates the following. I will go through this to try to educate the people sitting on my left hand side and also to make the industry understand that this amending Bill takes into consideration all their concerns as far as reinsurance is concerned. A reinsurance contract entered into by a medical scheme is not valid unless it has been approved by the registrar. It is entered into with an insurer and has to comply with any condition which may be prescribed. An amendment of the terms of an existing contract is also not valid unless such amendment has been approved by the registrar. A medical scheme must furnish an application for the proposed reinsurance contract to the registrar. There is an evaluation of the need for the proposed reinsurance contract according to directives issued by the medical scheme. There are specified conditions under which, unless complied with, the registrar may not approve such a contract or an amendment to an existing insurance contract if due consideration has not been given by the medical scheme concerned to the need for reinsurance based upon an assessment of the financial risk to which the scheme may be exposed, for example, if reinsurance is not in the best interests of the members of the scheme concerned or if there is a conflict of interest between the parties to the reinsurance contract.

The medical scheme industry is a massive one. There is stiff competition between schemes and membership is very high. Profits are also very high, we are discussing a multibillion rand industry. The need and the way the industry conducted itself show that all they are concerned with is their profits and not the health of our people. This Bill seeks to protect that, and we will use everything within our means to do that as well. It is for that reason that we have this amending Bill here today.

I hope that clause 5, which amends section 20 of the principal Act, will curb the widespread abuse of reinsurance which has resulted in significant losses of medical aid schemes’ funds. There is currently far too much money of members that is accumulating in other financial entities that members do not own. This leads to exploitation of members. Reinsurance is also used to hide the true financial position of schemes and for window-dressing purposes. As the great political theorist, Machiavelli, once said:

… the majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances as though they were realities, and are influenced by things that seem rather than those that are.

We should therefore not allow reinsurance to delude us into believing what things seem to be rather than what they are. The ANC supports this Medical Schemes Amendment Bill. [Applause.]

Mr J T MASEKA: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, I would like to congratulate hon members and the committee on this amending Bill.

The UDM supports this Bill. It is very important as it extends certain rights of members to their dependants. It further explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, and protects the interests of beneficiaries. The Bill regulates the circumstances under which a waiting period may be applied and further regulates the practice of reinsurance. The UDM supports this Bill. [Applause.]

Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairperson, hon Ministers and hon members, the ACDP would like to see free or subsidised medical attention for all who cannot afford it, but this is not the responsibility of business. It is in fact the responsibility of the church, but while Government takes the lion’s share of our salaries through levies and taxes, they have hijacked this responsibility. Therefore, health care for the 82% of the population who are not catered for through medical aid schemes should be provided for through subsidies based on means tests, as is done successfully in Chile.

The ACDP would like to vote in favour of this Bill, which appears to offer the public additional protection which consumers in South Africa generally do not have. Abuse in this industry has impacted negatively on the economy and individuals and therefore, any additional oversight is to be welcomed.

However, interference in the running of businesses is not desirable and would be detrimental to business. It would further impact negatively on consumers. The Bill, as it stands, creates incentives for people to join medical schemes only when they are sick or old. In addition, without a waiting period, people are able to move from scheme to scheme, joining low- cost benefit schemes and moving to high-cost, high-benefit schemes only when serious illness threatens.

The result of this will be the eroding of all benefits and increases in costs, forcing consumers once again to bear the brunt. Obviously, where special circumstances occur, such as retrenchment, these exceptions must be accommodated, and this can be written into the legislation.

As the Minister of Health has a habit of unfairly accusing opposition party members of not having attended committee meetings when they cannot respond or defend themselves, I place on record my participation in the meetings of the Portfolio Committee on Health, and remind the Minister that where, on occasion, members of smaller parties are not present they are in other committees that demand priority at that particular time.

To be fair, it should be noted that majority party members attend between one and three committees, and smaller parties’ members cover many more, for me that number is eight. It is also relevant to note that such members also have the ability to read and consult with role-players in and outside of committees.

The ACDP wishes Dr Nkomo all the best in his new appointment, and we pray that God’s plan and purpose will be fulfilled in his life.

Mr I S MFUNDISI: Chairperson and hon members, the Bill seeks to assist members of medical aid schemes to get value for the money they pay by extending some of their rights to their dependants.

In keeping with the trends of the country’s Constitution, which calls for nondiscrimination on whatever grounds, the Bill calls on medical aid schemes not to discriminate against clients, even on the grounds of age. To ensure transparency, beneficiaries will have the right to scrutinise records that have a bearing on them, while in the custody of the medical schemes. Although in some cases it may be at a cost, the breakthrough is that it will be possible to access these records.

The Bill guards against a conflict of interests. According to the Bill, members of the boards of trustees of medical schemes should not be people with a financial interest in the scheme. Only neutral and objective people may be board members.

In these hard times we notice the proliferation of medical schemes, some of which are dubious. Clause 6 therefore seeks to curb these unscrupulous vultures by providing protection to consumers regarding the marketing of medical schemes.

Further protection is offered to members by clause 13, which empowers the registrar to call for the financial statements of medical schemes on a quarterly basis, or at some other time which the registrar finds suitable. Such a practice will encourage good business conduct on the part of the medical scheme.

The UCDP supports the Bill.

Dr I M CACHALIA: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, the Medical Schemes Amendment Bill was introduced for the protection of members and to provide wider access to health care for all South Africans. The Government has obvious concerns about the manner in which the private health sector is conducting its business.

The private sector will spend an estimated R35,5 billion this year on seven million people. In contrast, R27,2 billion was budgeted for health care spending on 35 million people. Private health care will thus account for 54% of all health care spending, and that on only 16% of the population. South Africa is one of only two countries in the world where health care spent in the private sector exceeds that spent in the public sector. The other country is the United States.

In the wake of the damning report of the World Health Organisation last year, which rated the health efficiencies in South Africa 175th out of 191 countries worldwide, there has been considerable focus on the health care economy. The success of countries that scored well in the WHO report was based on the ability of the entire health sector to deliver within the budget.

Medical aid members are being hit hard by unacceptably high medical inflation, and consumers are being squeezed by ever-increasing medical costs. A factor contributing to the small pool of medical aid members is the fact that two thirds of households earn below R3 000 per month. If one applies the simple rule that a medical aid contribution should not be more than 10% of the income, there is nothing left for R300 a month.

The council blames excesses in the industry for most of the problems. Many in the industry blame the laws and regulations the council has imposed on them for pushing the costs even higher. The contentious issues between the industry and the Council for Medical Schemes revolves around the administration and administrative costs, reinsurance, reserve accounting and the so-called waiting periods. The hon the Minister and some of the other members have already addressed these concerns in the debate on the Bill this afternoon. Broker fees should also be factored into the equation.

Another factor driving up the cost of medical aids is the controversial issue of commissions. By law, a commission of 3% of first-year contributions is permissible, but some administrators ignore this and sidestep the regulations. They call further commissions administration fees''. Bruce Cameron, a financial expert, states in a reportthat commissions of 6% of annual contributions are being billed. This issue becomes of greater concern when a medical scheme says in its annual report, 1999, that reinsurance was taken to pay commissions. This is unacceptable.’’ And I agree.

The industry is quick to blame costs on regulation, but results of research undertaken by the Centre for Actuarial Research over the past 10 years ending 1999, showed otherwise. The main contributors to even higher costs were, firstly, private hospitals whose costs were up by 192%, and that had nothing to do with the regulation. Next in line was administration, which was up by 148%. I believe there needs to be total transparency in this respect. Thirdly, medicines, which often carry much of the blame from the Government’s side, were up by 61%.

Questions must therefore be asked about excessive increases in hospital costs and why scheme administrators cannot slow down these costs. Medical aid fraud and white-collar crime have become a significant bugbear and contribute to spiralling health costs. An estimated R50 million a year is being stolen by schemes from members. Estimates vary from 10% of the total value of the industry by Fedsure Health, to a high of 25% by Discovery Health. Greed and a lack of ethics obviously play a big role. It is estimated that at least half of all medical aid claims are fraudulent and spent on unnecessary services. The medical schemes fraud unit recovered R10,3 million from doctors in the year 2000.

There is a paucity of information for the consumers who are totally confused. Pensioners are now seeing health care as an unaffordable luxury, and cover for the poor is urgently needed. There is also an urgent need for low-income cover to close the gap between the small percentage of the population who are under medical care and the vast majority who use the public health services.

Certain medical schemes have attempted to link the selling of insurance or other products to membership of their scheme. This is often called ``conditional selling’’. In some cases this is done to indirectly increase the cost of medical scheme membership for older and sicker risk groups. In other cases it is used to increase administration and commission fees extracted from members. As a consequence of these abuses, the amendment of the Medical Schemes Act aims to stop this practice by explicitly outlawing conditional selling. If the different role-players are going to talk past each other, consumers are going to face even higher contributions and lower benefits. When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.

I need to digress from the problems associated with the medical aid industry and take this opportunity to voice my concern about services in the public health sector. There is an urgent need for an integrated and very efficient management system to become operational for the optimum use of the economic resources at our disposal. We further need to fast-track human resource development for the running of the health services. A dedicated, honest and competent component is absolutely essential. Furthermore, I believe it would be commendable if the private and the public health sectors could really join hands to map out our vision of an affordable, accessible, equitable and comprehensive health system. [Applause.]

Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Speaker, medical schemes are a vital part of the health of a nation, particularly where social benefits do not cover health expenses. Medical schemes should be structured with the interests of the individual as their focal point. It is to be regretted that in a country where the vast majority of the population is poor, medical schemes are mostly unaffordable. With the high rate of unemployment the cost of living is very high, with expensive medical schemes the cost of health is very high, and with expensive caskets and funerals the cost of dying is also very high. The only salvation for the poor lies with the legislature.

The PAC welcomes this Bill, which has been extensively debated in the portfolio committee and has enjoyed great interest in the hearings from a wide spectrum of stakeholders. The section of the Bill on reinsurance proved to be problematic. We believe that reinsurance is in the interest of patients and should be provided for a reasonable period of about two years, on condition that there is no possibility of unfair and corrupt practices by practitioners.

The solvency level and membership size of the scheme are also important considerations. Medical schemes are also affected by claims fluctuations, the cost of drugs and the vagaries of our currency. All these factors affect medical schemes and, ultimately, the victim is the customer who in moments of ill health is most helpless and most vulnerable. The amending Bill, we hope, will strengthen the arm of the registrar in administering medical schemes and protecting members of medical schemes and their dependants against abuse and medical schemes that do not have the capacity to meet the vast needs of medical services. We support this Bill as amended and hope that it will be well received by the House and our nation as a whole.

Go Modulasetulo wa komiti ya rena, ke kwele ditaba tše dibotse. Ke re sepela gabotse e bile o ipshine, o be o dule gabotse Malaysia. O dirile ka maatla, bjale ke nako ya go khutša. Ke tshepha gore o tla hwetša khutšo Malaysia. Feela o hlokomele ka gore pula ya gona e na kudu. O tla nyaka sekepe gore o kgone o rialo. [Lesego]. Feela kua Kuala Lumpur ga go tshwenye le dikebeke ga di gona, ka gona o tla iketla. [Lesego.] Sepela gabotse. (Translation of Sepedi paragraph follows.)

[To our chairperson of committees, I have heard the good news. I say goodbye and enjoy yourself, also stay well in Malaysia. You worked hard, now is the time to relax. I believe that you will find rest in Malaysia. But be careful because it is always raining there. You will need a ship to do so. [Laughter.] But in Kuala Lumpur there is no problem as there are no criminals, you will relax there. [Laughter.] Goodbye.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, the earlier Bill set out to institute and organise the running of medical schemes by improved action by the following, namely governance, administration, financial soundness in the interests of members and via a council and office of the registrar, and improved supervision and oversight of the medical scheme.

It is understandable that the provisions set out to manage medical schemes would not be easy, due to its large capacity. The amendments made are, therefore, accepted. It should always be remembered that amendments to a Bill do not always mean that the earlier Bill had failed, but rather that amendments may cater for an improved manner of accomplishing the central initiative. It is especially agreed upon that there should be no discrimination on the basis of age for, as an equal people, we are entitled to an equal representation and are covered by law. This, certainly, ensures compliance with our national Constitution.

Furthermore, the provision requesting more regular submission of financial returns would certainly promote our system of checks and balances to be accomplished in a more thorough and transparent manner. However, a proper timeframe should be suggested so that medical schemes may have sufficient time to do so. All amendments made to this Bill appear to inculcate a more thorough system to oversee the division of medical schemes, as well as offering beneficiaries of these schemes greater protection. The MF supports the Medical Schemes Amendment Bill. [Applause.]

Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, indeed, medical funding is a crucial matter all over the world. It was a crucial issue in the American presidential election. Medical inflation, year by year, exceeds ordinary inflation, especially in South Africa.

It is an old strategy to render effective, accessible and affordable medical service to all. Medical funds are playing a pivotal role. The crucial requirement for a Bill on medical schemes is to balance the needs of the consumer, practitioners and the fund. A medical fund should not be a money-making business where the middleman walks away with the profit. On the other hand, medical funds are not welfare services subsidising the industry. Compared to the principal Act, this amending Bill will effect a great improvement in this regard.

The AEB welcomes greater clarity on the position of beneficiaries. This will enable medical funds to do more accurate actuarial planning. The independent evaluation of the proposed contracts with reinsurers by the registrar must be welcomed to curb the widespread abuse of reinsurance. The reinsurer may not be a third party, walking away with the biggest piece of the cake. This Bill will also reduce the costly red tape in administration which results in unnecessary costs, as the Minister indicated.

The main principle underlying the functioning of a medical scheme is the principle of cross-subsidisation. This principle could be jeopardised by adverse selection by medical schemes, and this Bill, with the two definitions of waiting periods, will curb this unhealthy trend, without penalising the member unfairly.

Een aspek wat besonder versigtig hanteer sal moet word, is die verbod op penalisasie as gevolg van ouderdom. [One aspect which will have to be handled with great care is the prohibition on penalising someone by reason of their age.]

The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Bill, which supersedes all other legislation except the Constitution, stipulates that differentiation according to objective factors inherent to the relevant activity shall not be regarded as unfair discrimination. In my opinion, differentiation according to age of entry into a medical scheme is just that. We have to make sure that the prohibition on differentiation on the basis of age does not result in unfair selection against certain funds.

The AEB supports this amending Bill, and hopes that it will improve the crucial balancing of interests in this very important field.

Mrs S V KALYAN: Madam Speaker, the Medical Schemes Amendment Bill is a relatively new Bill, and the question why an amendment is needed so soon after implementation begs an answer. The main objectives of the amendment, amongst others, are purported to be to regulate the practice of reinsurance, regulate waiting periods and expand the powers of the registrar.

All this is supposedly in the interests of the consumer. Unfortunately, it would appear that the service providers are going to be severely prejudiced by overregulation. It also became quite apparent, during the hearings, that one company appears to be the target of these amendments - a dangerous precedent indeed, because the medical schemes industry is about much more than the practices of one company. However, bearing in mind the increased burden on the public health sector and that healthy private-public partnerships are vital to a healthy nation, the DP supports the amendments in principle, with notable objections around section 29A and section 2O.

The proposed amendments in 29A focus around the issue of waiting periods. It prejudices most medical schemes and removes a vital protection against adverse selection. No provision is made to curb voluntary scheme-hopping by the opportunistic consumer. Medical schemes are held to ransom in the sense that waiting periods have been drastically reduced, thereby raising the risk stakes and possibly increasing the claims costs of a medical scheme by more than 5% in any one year. Suggestions to draft specific criteria enabling voluntary scheme changes, two-tiered benefits and the introduction of an annual, limited open enrolment period have been ignored.

Section 2O is so prescriptive that it challenges the constitutionality of contracts entered into legally. The council has opted to ignore warnings to err on the side of caution and has left itself open to unnecessary and expensive litigation. It is also unfortunate that there is very little acknowledgement of the positive value of legitimate reinsurance to the consumer.

The ever-growing power of the council and the registrar is of concern. One of the amendments proposed is that a reinsurance contract entered into by a medical scheme is not valid unless such contract is approved by the registrar. Not only does this fall outside the ambit of his work, but it is quite an onerous and expensive task. It is seriously doubted whether the council has the capacity and person-power to achieve this, and the question of who accepts financial responsibility in the case of delays remains unanswered. Furthermore, while the rationale is sound, that is, to protect the interests of the scheme and its members, the method of achieving this is improper, and the general thinking of medical schemes is that this activity falls within the ambit of the Financial Services Board. In conclusion, the proposed amendment to the Medical Schemes Act has far- reaching implications for all concerned. It is sincerely hoped that the council and the Department of Health are not shooting themselves in the foot by rushing this amendment through before having properly consulted all the relevant stakeholders. [Applause.]

Dr S C CWELE: Madam Speaker, molweni bahlobo bami … [Hallo, my friends …]

Hon MEMBERS: Molo! [Hallo!]

Dr S C CWELE: Madam Speaker, in supporting this Bill, the ANC would like to thank all the stakeholders, including the minority parties, who contributed and co-operated in the process of public hearings and deliberations, which resulted in this improved amending Bill before this House.

For the first time in this Parliament, everyone, including the minority parties, except Dr Rabinowitz, is agreed that the ANC leads. [Interjections.] The ANC leads in ensuring that the interests of the ordinary members of medical aid schemes are always protected. [Interjections.] The ANC leads in ensuring that we have a vibrant and lively medical aid scheme industry that has sound and accountable governance structures. [Interjections.]

I singled out Dr Rabinowitz because we honestly believe that she did not represent the interests of the IFP supporters. [Interjections.] Her behaviour during the deliberations of the committee was very disturbing. She kept on hopping in and out of the committee and telephoning different players in the industry. But, even that process did not help, because every time she came back, she came back even more confused. [Applause.]

We take cognisance of the concerns raised by hon Mike Ellis and the New NP. [Interjections.] But the core of the problem is not the instability within the industry. We believe that the core of the problem lies in the governance of the medical aid scheme industry by the trustees. That is why we have increases in administration costs instead of decreases in the premiums. That is why we have these incidents of inappropriate reinsurance. All we need is to make sure that members of the board of trustees are accountable to members of medical aid schemes. They should stop flying all over the world and coming back to make inappropriate decisions on behalf of the members.

My input will focus on the concept of waiting periods for members who are joining a medical scheme. I will deal with the rationale behind the waiting periods, the unintended problems that we have encountered and the remedies that we have implemented. Members may remember that the survival of medical schemes depends on risk pooling, cross-subsidisation and the building of adequate reserves to ensure liquidity. The waiting periods are then the mechanism of protecting these schemes against some members who elect to join only when they are sick, that is, adverse selecting.

The Minister has advanced that there are two types of waiting period, that is, the general waiting period to ensure that one builds up the reserves, and the condition-specific waiting period for specific diseases which normally result in recurrent and very high claims. The waiting periods, in turn, must be carefully regulated in order to prevent discrimination and abuse by the schemes.

The problem with the current legislation is that it waives the imposition of waiting periods only in respect of people who join another medical scheme because of a change of employment. This Bill now includes protection for those members who involuntarily change medical schemes, as in the case of retrenchment or where the decision to change the medical scheme is taken by the employer. We are adamant that members should not be discriminated against in those instances. The Bill also provides for protection of members who are not adversely selecting, but want to change their medical scheme because they are unhappy with the management or the administration of the scheme.

The Bill was amended to ensure certainty in the industry by removing the waiting periods from the regulations and extensively detailing them in the Bill. In this respect, we support this Bill. We feel that this Bill is constitutionally sound and broadly protects the interests of the industry and, more specifically, the members of the medical aid scheme. We support this Bill. [Applause.]

UNGQONGQOSHE WEZEMPILO: Somlomo wePhalamende laseMzansi Afrika, ngisukumela ukubonga ukuthi nalabo ababenokukhononda kancane nje ngalo mThetho nezinto esizenenezela kuwo ukuze sikhusele izidingo zalabo okwakukudala becindezelwe, benganakekelwe futhi bexhashazwa, nokho-ke nabo sebeyavumelana nathi ngalo mbono wokuthi kukhona izinto obekufanele sizifake kulo mThetho ukuze phela senze lokho esavotelelwa khona uma siza lapha ePhalamende.

Kodwa nje okungimangalisile, okusangithusile namanje - ngiyethemba ukuthi ubaba uShenge ulalele - hawu, umbono kaRabinowitz, ungithuse ngempela! Angicabangi nje mina ukuthi njengoba silapha, lokhu abekusho bekungumbono we-Inkatha Freedom Party nalabo abayilandelayo. Usimangalisile-ke thina ngoba ikakhulukazi ukhulumele onxiwankulu kanti thina sicabanga ukuthi into okufanele siyenze ukuthi sikhusele abantu bakithi. Mhlawumbe into iqembu le- IFP elizoke liyibhekisise leyo.

Mayelana nodadewethu-ke uDudley, cha impela anginakho engingakusho ngoba phela angeke ngiphume ngiyomkhankasela ukuze athole amalunga amaningi azoza lapha ePhalamende ukuze akwazi ukuya kuwo wonke amakomidi. Nakho lokho akushilo ukuthi uHulumeni uthathe umsebenzi wabo ngokunakekela izidingo zabantu balapha, nalokho angikwazi nami ukuthi kusho ukuthini. Mhlawumbe uzoke athi ukungichazela uma sesisuke lapha. Ngiyabonga kakhulu ukuthi ngempela, ngempela lokhu esikwenzayo kuzowasimamisa ama-medical aid scheme. (Translation of Zulu speech follows.)

[The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Madam Speaker of the South African Parliament, I would like to say thank you even to those who complained about this Bill and the things we amended in it to protect the needs of the people who were previously oppressed, not cared for and even abused. They now accept the idea that there are things we should have included in this Bill so that we can fulfil those things we were voted in for, as we came to this Parliament.

What has surprised and still shocks me - I hope father Shenge is listening

• Hey! Rabinowitz’s opinion has really shocked me! I do not think that as we are here, what she said was the opinion of the IFP and its followers. She surprised us because basically she spoke on behalf of the capitalists, while we think that what we need to do is protect our people. Maybe this is the thing that the IFP will take another look at.

Concerning my sister Dudley, I have nothing to say, because I cannot go out and campaign for her so that she can win many seats in Parliament that will enable her to be represented in all committees. I do not know what she meant by saying that the Government has taken their job by caring for the needs of the people of this country. Maybe she will explain to me after this meeting. I am thankful for the fact that what we are doing, will improve medical aid schemes.] Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

                       MENTAL HEALTH CARE BILL

                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Madam Speaker and hon members, today we reach yet another milestone in our quest to provide a better life and better health for all our South African citizens. Before us we have a piece of legislation which takes a further step towards realising our people’s constitutional and human rights - especially the rights of people with disabilities - and which promotes a full and comprehensive approach to health and health care.

I must emphasise at the onset that mental health is as important as physical health to the overall wellbeing of individuals, communities and societies. I view improved mental health as one of the central objectives of our work, and I know this view is widely shared in the Department of Health.

It is most appropriate and even fortunate that we are discussing this piece of legislation at this point in time. Even though it has taken over four years of consultation, drafting and redrafting to reach this stage, the timing is excellent indeed. Through the advocacy of the World Health Organisation, the year 2001, as we all know, has been observed as a focus year for mental health and this aspect of health has received the highest international priority. By passing this legislation as 2001 draws to a close, we will capture, for years to come, a practical embodiment of the spirit and values that underpin this focus on mental health.

Members may recall that on 7 April this year, South Africa joined countries around the globe in celebrating World Health Day with its theme of mental health and its message, which was ``stop exclusion, dare to care’’. Many members will also remember how bells all over the country tolled at noon on that day to help us to ring out hope for mental health. In May I attended the World Health Assembly and participated in the round-table discussions dealing with mental health.

On 4 October, the World Health Organisation report for the year 2001 was released. The theme of this year’s report is indeed mental health. This report, under the title Mental Health: WHO understanding, WHO hope, puts mental health under the microscope. It concludes that, given the massive burden of suffering resulting from mental health problems, and given the extent of our knowledge about preventing and treating mental illness, countries of the world have not done nearly enough. Sadly, this is especially true of developing countries.

With regard to legislation, the report notes that nearly a quarter of member countries have no mental health legislation at all. A further one fifth have legislation dating back over 40 years. Though our current legislation is only 20 years old, I know that members will agree that it is way out of date and change is therefore urgently needed. Fortunately, I can confidently say that the Bill before us captures all the main recommendations of the World Health Organisation report in terms of service provision and human rights. This legislation indeed cements a truly memorable and remarkable year for the promotion of mental health in our country.

The primary objectives of this Bill are, firstly, to ensure that appropriate care, treatment and rehabilitation are provided at all levels of the health service. Emphasis has changed fundamentally from the custodial approach of the past to one that encourages the community care of people needing mental health services. We have taken the view that, wherever possible, mental health services should be integrated into general health care.

A second major objective is to safeguard the rights of people with mental disabilities. Members may suggest that we already have a Constitution which does just this and therefore we are merely duplicating the law. However, if we were to examine each clause on human rights in the Bill, members would see how the basic constitutional framework is expanded upon and used to entrench specific rights of people with mental illness and intellectual disabilities. At the same time, we are legislating the main principles of the UN General Assembly Resolution of 1991 on the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement of mental health care.

It is important to note that we are entrenching rights not only through the clause dealing explicitly with patients’ rights, but also through special administrative procedures which must be followed when dealing with people who do not or cannot provide their consent to care. From a rights perspective, the Bill is somewhat complex because we have to balance two sets of rights. On the one hand, we have to ensure the protection of people with mental disabilities, but we also have to protect the rights of the public in instances where their safety may be compromised by a person with mental disability.

Let me emphasise that the vast majority of people with mental illness are not aggressive and not a danger to anyone. However, the law must deal with the exceptions. I do not wish to deny that some people with mental disabilities can and do become aggressive and dangerous. I believe the required balancing of rights is successfully achieved in this legislation.

Let me now outline some of the main differences between the existing Act and the Bill before us. In doing so, I will try to illustrate why it has been necessary to draw up totally new legislation rather than merely introduce amendments.

This Bill is termed the Mental Health Care Bill, in contrast to the current Mental Health Act. The reason for this is that there are many aspects of medical health that are not dealt with in this legislation. For example, the prevention of mental illness and the promotion of mental health are not covered. Of course, this was also true of the existing Act which has, in our view, always been misnamed. Secondly, we have introduced a chapter on patients’ rights. I have talked about this already so I will not dwell on it. I do need to make the point that even today people with mental illness are badly discriminated against, stigmatised and abused. This legislation is an essential element in our ongoing efforts to change attitudes towards mental illness.

Thirdly, this Bill provides a new professional category, the mental health care practitioner. We need to do this in order to make optimal use of all suitably qualified personnel in our country. By eliminating some of the fallacies and distinctions between the health professions, we can create better access to mental health services, especially for the poor and the historically disadvantaged, particularly those in the rural areas.

Fourthly, we have moved responsibility for clinical decisions away from the judiciary to the clinicians. In doing this, we have also made provision to set up mental health review boards that would protect patients against arbitrary and unnecessary committal and retention in institutions. Each board will consist of between three and five people, including a mental health care practitioner, a person with knowledge of the law and a person from the community.

Fifthly, the Bill introduces a 72-hour assessment period that must be utilised prior to involuntary committal. This can take place at a general hospital and will avoid a number of unnecessary admissions. It will also help overcome problems of stigmatisation.

Sixthly, provisions are made for involuntary community care. This will go a long way towards meeting one of the Bill’s objectives, which is to provide care in the least restrictive environment, while at the same time ensuring that care is provided where a person needs treatment but is unable or unwilling to give consent.

The seventh major difference from the existing Act is the period for reviewing the continued hospitalisation of involuntary patients, state patients and mentally ill prisoners. The new periods for review will be after the first six months and then every year following this. At present in certain instances the period between reviews can be as long as five years.

The differences between this new Bill and the existing Act lie not only in what has been added, but also in what has been discarded. Some clauses have been excluded simply because they are redundant. More significantly, however, there are provisions that we have scrapped because they are blatantly unconstitutional. For example, the infamous section 66A, which cloaked psychiatric hospitals in secrecy by virtually prohibiting the media from reporting on them, has been removed. This does not mean that patient confidentiality can now be infringed upon, but rather that we recognise the right to information and believe openness about the running of institutions will help to improve the situation for mentally disabled people.

At the international level this has been the year of advocacy for mental health. In South Africa I believe that we have more than played our part in helping to raise the issues and profile of mental health. But we still have a most significant step to take, a step that will change the lives of people with mental disabilities and help to improve our country’s mental health status. It is our collective responsibility to pass this legislation and, in so doing, to advance human rights and better health for our nation and our citizens. [Applause.]

Mrs S V KALYAN: Madam Speaker, mental health has acquired the label of being the poor relative of health services in South Africa. One of the main reasons for this has been that mental illness has been poorly understood and that the domain of care lay with highly specialised individuals.

The Mental Health Care Bill has been long overdue and it is quite ironic that we debate this Bill in this month of October, which is deemed to be mental health awareness month. Mental health should be integral to a generic health service. If we can integrate it as such, then there will really be no need to set aside a month to raise awareness around the issues of mental health.

The title of the Bill goes a long way to destigmatise mental illness. The main aim of the Bill is the care, treatment and rehabilitation of persons with mental illness. It also offers such persons good protection of their human rights and we welcome the move to deinstitutionalise rehabilitated individuals and to provide care for them in family settings. The provision to establish review boards is beneficial to both the mental health services user and his family.

It is well known that many of the apartheid concepts were spawned by the German nationalist psychiatric philosophy that life devoid of value'' or inferior stock’’ justified the mass oppression and killing of individuals. Tens of thousands of black South Africans were incarcerated in the so-called special psychiatric institutions where they were subjected to ECT against their will. They were treated so atrociously that the media, decades later, dubbed these actions ``mental genocide’’.

When apartheid ended, in 1994, a full inquiry into malpractice and racism in psychiatric hospitals was held. The report, published in 1996, found that a gross violation of human rights had occurred. Death certificates were falsified to camouflage the real cause of death as being the result of the inhumane practices of ECT. It is sincerely hoped that this new legislation will never again allow people to have ECT against their will, nor be subjected to deep sleep therapy or have unnecessary drugs administered to them outside the parameter of consent. To this end, it is hoped that this will be one of the main functions of the proposed review boards.

Mental health has been shrouded in fear and hostility. It is my considered opinion that the paradigm shift is happening too slowly, especially in view of the impact that crime, violence and HIV/Aids are having on the daily lives of ordinary South Africans. While this piece of legislation is welcomed, there are some areas which need attention. Firstly, the Mental Health Care Bill does not make adequate provision for community mental health. In view of the recent terrorist attacks in the USA, this is a serious area for consideration. Many of the persons who viewed the television footage will, in all probability, suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders, perhaps develop a fear of flying, or a fear of enclosed spaces or heights, or some related illness. These kinds of mental illnesses are curable and preventable and an ongoing awareness and prevention community mental health programme will address them. Funding of prevention and treatment programmes needs to be prioritised and budgeted for.

It is all very well to have the Bill, but for it to be translated into action, police personnel need to be trained to handle a mentally ill patient who may be in their care and custody. Provision for the transport of these patients from one facility to another has to be made. Presently, many mentally ill patients are transported in a rather inhumane manner - in the back of police vehicles.

Psychiatric facilities and care and rehabilitation centres need to be upgraded and made user-friendly. Some of them are so neglected, they look like prisons. Furthermore, a national postdischarge support programme needs to be implemented. Patients who are discharged from a psychiatric institution, where all their choices have been made for them, into the community where they can live as free agents, are vulnerable, and they are in need of ongoing support to ensure successful transition. Above all, strengthening the capacity of provinces to translate the Mental Health Care Bill policies into workable strategies is the starting point, with the ultimate goal being to merge mental health with general health.

In conclusion, persons with mental illnesses have high levels of unemployment, reduced self-esteem, a lower income and fewer social networks. Education of employers and the community at large will go a long way to reduce the stigma, fear and hostility towards people with mental illnesses. The DP supports this Bill. [Applause.]

Dr A S NKOMO: Madam Speaker, the ANC supports this Bill because it transports us from the primitive chaos of the pre-industrial era, described so vividly by Charles Dickens, to the caring ethos of the period after Alma- Ata. In other words, it moves us from cruel incarcerative management to caring compassion.

I am delighted to report that this Bill was widely canvassed and accepted by all stakeholders. I am even happier to report that the Bill was accepted unanimously by all the parties. This was a first for our committee, to have this kind of unanimity. I do not know whether it was good riddance'' or farewell’’ because, inshallah, when members next meet here yours truly will be on distant shores.

The committee convened hearings and received favourable inputs and suggestions from experts, men and women, on how the committee could further strengthen the Bill. As a result, various technical and a few substantive amendments were made. For example, the committee felt very strongly that persons who are mentally ill and can harm themselves and others, and as a result are taken into custody by the police for protection, should be transferred to a designated health facility within 24 hours, to reduce the risk of injury or possible human rights violations.

Mental health has been the Cinderella of health, requiring more attention, more resources and more appropriate legislation. This Bill is therefore not legislating for some obscure and minor disorder, but addresses the needs of millions of people. It has huge individual, social and economic consequences. Therefore, it becomes essential that we see health as a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing, as without this approach, we will never deal effectively with illness, disease and disability.

Science now shows us conclusively that poor mental health impacts on poor physical health and vice versa. The World Health Organisation estimates that around 450 million people around the world suffer from some mental or behavioural disorder, yet only a small proportion receive even the most basic treatment. This is exacerbated because people are victimised and stigmatised for their illnesses, as the Minister and the hon Sandy Kaylan have attested just now.

Mental health problems are not restricted to class, race, economic status and so on. Estimates show us that around 10% of adults are suffering from a mental health problem at any one point. During an entire lifetime around 25% of people develop one or more mental or behavioural problem. Studies done on people attending primary health care centres, including in South Africa, have found that around 20% to 30% of attendees were suffering from a mental disorder of sufficient severity to warrant professional intervention.

I am pleased to say that the Medunsa School of Public Health is currently one of the sites being used in a worldwide epidemiological study to establish the prevalence of mental disorders. Once this research is completed, we will be able to say with much more confidence exactly what the problem is in South Africa and plan accordingly.

Having said that mental health problems are universal, it would not be true to say that all problems affect all groups in the same way. There are obvious vulnerabilities and risk factors which result in fairly significant differences. Poverty, with its related problems of unemployment, low educational levels, deprivation and homelessness, is a major risk factor for the development of mental disorders, especially disorders such as depression and anxiety. The increased risk in poor areas results in twice as many disorders as in richer areas. The cost of the disorders is also related to socioeconomic status. This has a lot to do with the ``treatment gap’’ between rich and poor.

Two particular additional risk factors for mental health in South Africa are violence and HIV/Aids. Both as a result of past violence which happened during the apartheid era and ongoing violence, many South Africans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, which results directly from both physical and emotional trauma. HIV/Aids has a huge psychological effect on the people infected, their families and their communities as a whole.

Given the rising prevalence, it is difficult to estimate the economic cost of mental health problems in South Africa. Research needs to be done here or in other developing countries to inform us. Mental illness is a massive problem. We have to stop exclusion, we have to dare to care.

The committee has carefully considered this legislation and concluded that we are dealing with a very important area of health care which will be significantly assisted by passing this Bill. I commend this Bill. [Applause.]

Dr O BALOYI: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, hon members, the Bill we are debating today will repeal the Mental Health Act, 1973, now considered to be outdated and in part unconstitutional.

The role of the state in providing mental health services is outlined in this Bill. It provides for accessibility and integration of mental health services at the various levels of health care provision. The Bill enables equitable and efficient provision of care, treatment and rehabilitation for the population, making this affordable within available resources.

The Department of Health’s annual report for 2000-2001 provides some information with regard to mental health, for example that five out of ten chronic disabilities are mental disabilities, 1% to 3% of any population will need hospitalisation for mental health problems, eight out of ten countries devote less than 1% of their health budgets to mental health and, in South Africa, there are 17 000 psychiatric hospital beds in the public sector.

It is clear that other fundamentals must be in place in order for this Bill to have the intended impact. We are encouraged to note that the Department of Health has set itself a goal of integrating mental health into general health care wherever possible and treating as many people as possible within the communities where they live, working together with NGOs.

With better deployment of health personnel who are appropriately trained in mental health through all the levels of care, it should, for example, be possible to move certain patients from psychiatric hospitals to community daycare centres. With the support of health professionals, some patients may even be moved to their families for better care.

Notwithstanding the good Bill that the Mental Health Care Bill is, I think adequate human resources are required to provide all the services envisaged in this Bill. The challenge for the provision of psychiatric specialists for instance, in this country, is identified in the August 2000 report on postgraduate training of medical doctors in South Africa. Here, in this document, we learn that there are 474 specialist psychiatrists in this country. Only 163 of them are in the Public Service, the rest being in the private sector. This gives the country a norm of 1,18 psychiatric specialists to a population of 100 000. Another factor of importance is that specialisation of nurse-training in psychiatry is a welcome move, and as will be seen in this mental health care document, mental health care practitioners are fully supported in this Bill.

The IFP supports this Bill and, in particular, we support the formation of mental health review boards and what they can achieve closest to the people. It is encouraging to note that the section in the old Act which prohibited reporting on conditions of psychiatric institutions, has been omitted. This leaves room for transparency. In other words, the performance of psychiatric hospitals can be monitored and evaluated in a transparent manner. All in all, this is a very good Bill, and the IFP supports it. [Applause.]

Dr S J GOUS: Madam Speaker, our Constitution places an obligation on this state to provide access to health care. This would naturally and obviously include mental health. Our Constitution also prohibits unfair discrimination against any person and this would include mentally ill patients.

Historically, mental health, and for that matter illness, calls up a very negative perception and image. One can think of mentally ill patients chained like animals in the Middle Ages, incarcerated, isolated, malnourished and mistreated. We can even recall incidents where mental illness has been misused for political purposes.

Despite all these negative perceptions, there have been significant advances in the treatment and handling of patients with mental illness. All these issues had to be taken up in a new Mental Health Care Bill, and what the hon members see in front of them today is the result of this process.

Firstly, a mentally ill patient must always be treated with the necessary respect and human dignity. In other words, his human rights have to be respected. At the same time, the right of the community and society must also be addressed. The mentally ill patient also has to be integrated into the primary health care system, backed up by the secondary, tertiary and specialist mental health institutions.

The legislation also had to conform to international standards and all the aforementioned, which led to the significant new definitions and changes in the approach to mental health care as we know it. In this regard, the care of mentally ill patients within society, as opposed to long-term hospitalisation, also had to be accommodated. As an overriding principle, one can state that mentally ill patients must be treated as normal patients with all the rights any normal human being has, and his illness must be treated in the least restrictive and intrusive manner. We believe that, for the first time, all these issues are being addressed and, in fact, there is a whole chapter in the Bill that deals with the rights of the mentally ill patient.

Another new concept is the so-called mental health review board. These boards have to act in the interests of the patient and have to consider aspects such as compulsory hospitalisation and detention and balance them with the patient’s rights to treatment and to have control over their own destiny.

There are many new definitions and concepts which mental health care providers will have to get used to. Many other issues such as the voluntary mental health care user, the role of the SA Police Services, especially regarding emergencies, transport, custody, constraining measures available to them, the respect of human dignity and unfair discrimination, as well as confidentiality, are all addressed in this legislation.

In conclusion, we believe that this legislation must realise the promise of transparency and an improved process of decision-making. It must further the public’s understanding of mental illness, control the scope of the state’s powers, promote proper discretion in policy creation and provide for accountability for source allocation. After all, it will not matter how good or bad the legislation is that we produce. If it fails administratively, and there are far too many examples of this, it will be a total waste of time and effort.

We must also accept that this is new and groundbreaking legislation. Of course, there will be some unintended consequences and mistakes. We therefore urge that if any of these should materialise, we should bring this legislation back for amendment sooner rather than later so that it can be finetuned.

Lastly, we must also accept that the affordability of this legislation might put a damper on all our good intentions. Despite these reservations, we think it is an honest attempt on the part of the Government to regulate the sphere of mental health.

Our appreciation must be extended to Prof Freeman and his team, whose tireless efforts and hard work resulted in this legislation. It has been a positive experience and a pleasure to be part of this and we shall support the Bill. I just want to conclude with a quotation:

There is no genius without a touch of madness.

Mrs M M MALUMISE: Mr Chairperson, I cannot agree more with Comrade Gous when he said that ``indeed mental health patients were treated like animals’’. This is what we are trying to rectify here. With regard to hon Kalyan - is she in the House? -I think what we are doing here this afternoon is that we are sending a message, and a very strong one, of awareness to the people out there. Are we not doing that? Definitely we are.

The past ideological framework for mental health has been a combination of racial discrimination, paternalism and institutionalism. Mental health services have been vertical, fragmented and have over-emphasised curative services. But this is all going to change. Why? Listen to this. This is because of this Government which has given … [Interjections.] Yes, why are they saying ``ha’’? [Interjections.] It is because this Government has given mental health more attention, due to the wider awareness amongst activist politicians who came up with an ANC health plan, and the more articulate lobbying by mental health professionals. The department and Prof Freeman, the man over there, must be congratulated on tabling a sterling piece of legislation that is progressive and will stand the test of time. [Interjections.]

The old Mental Health Act has been criticised for not protecting the rights of patients who are detained involuntarily and for protecting mental health institutions from public scrutiny. There has been an acute lack of mental health promotion and psychiatric therapeutic programmes in prisons - I have experienced that - this in spite of evidence of a number of prisoners with mental health problems in prisons. Normally only individuals complaining of psychiatric problems were referred. This Bill makes it compulsory for the head of a prison to ensure that a prisoner who may be in need of mental health care receives the necessary treatment, care and rehabilitation services.

The Bill also provides for the mentally ill prisoner to receive the appropriate training in the appropriate facility. Appropriate measures are in place to ensure that prisoners who abscond are taken into custody by the police - the hon Kalyan should listen to me - who are empowered to use the necessary precautions to apprehend the prisoner. Another first is that of the treatment running concurrently with the sentence. Once a prisoner’s sentence has elapsed, he is then entitled to be released or receive further treatment in an appropriate facility.

In the past, state patients were detained in psychiatric hospitals for an unduly long period of time with many of these patients not being in any therapeutic programmes. This changes to every six months, with the introduction of periodic reports on the mental condition of an institutionalised patient through review processes. These reports are to stipulate the full treatment programme, merits for granting leave, and the discharge of the state patient. To ensure transparency, these reports must be made available to the relevant parties. Facts show us that persons suffering from mental illness can improve and contribute to society. To prepare state patients for integration back into the community, provision is made for leave of absence to be provided from the health facility. I want to assure hon members that leave will only be granted once the review panel is of the opinion that a state patient has made the necessary recovery. Terms and conditions for leave are to be determined by the director-general, and not as it used to be in the past where it was done by a magistrate with no medical background. Those days are gone. Where the terms are violated, a state patient has to return to the health facility immediately.

The most difficult part of the Bill relates to interventions by the SA Police Service. It was difficult for us to deal with this section given our background, that is, detention without trial, abuse while in custody, and so on. Where a mentally ill person is in danger of causing harm to himself or to others, the police can be called upon to intervene and ensure that that person reaches a designated health facility within 24 hours. The committee insisted on a timeframe of 24 hours to reduce the risk of injury or human rights abuses.

In this regard, I want to urge the Ministers of Health and of Safety and Security to collaborate to ensure that members of the police receive the necessary training to deal with people with mental illness within a human rights framework. I also want to suggest that the Minister should consider Canada as an example of a country with the best practices in this regard.

I want to say goodbye to Dr Nkomo and thank him for the sterling work that he has done, especially within the last two weeks, in processing these two pieces of legislation. He has done a good job. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Because of the special circumstances surrounding the hon Dr Nkomo, I allowed 10 extra seconds.

Mr J T MASEKA: Chairperson and hon members, this Bill very importantly promotes and safeguards the human rights of people with mental disabilities and balances these rights with those of the public in circumstances where their rights may be infringed. It also ensures that appropriate care, treatment and rehabilitation services are made available to people with mental problems.

It is important to note the role of the state in providing mental health care services. This Bill correctly provides for much greater accessibility and integration of mental health services at the various levels of health care provision than is presently the case. These rights and duties include the right to respect and human dignity. This impacts on the consent to care, treatment, rehabilitation and admission to health establishments, and prevention of unfair discrimination, exploitation and abuse, as well as the determinations concerning mental health status.

It is important to note the confidentiality limitations on intimate adult relationships, their right to be represented and to have full knowledge of their rights. Furthermore, the Bill rehabilitates the mental health care environment, providing for the best possible health care, treatment and rehabilitation.

The inclusion of a chapter dealing with patients’ rights is critically important, as people with mental disability are still discriminated against, and not protected sufficiently by the law. The introduction of mental health care practitioners, far greater accessibility to various mental health services and the addition of mental health review boards also protect patients from arbitrary or unnecessary committal and retention.

The Bill rightly protects … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order, hon members.

Mr J T MASEKA: Chairperson, the UDM therefore supports the Bill.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairman, hon Minister, colleagues, this legislation which seeks to ensure that appropriate care, treatment and rehabilitation services are made available to people with mental health problems, in line with the primary health care approach, appears to have practical relevance to everyday clinical decision-making and promotes greater transparency. For these reasons, the ACDP would have voted in favour of the Mental Health Care Bill. We are, however, aware that communities have very real concerns which have not been addressed in this legislation.

Although the Bill promotes the human rights of people with disabilities, which is commendable, its efforts to balance these with the rights of the public are unsuccessful. When it comes to state patients, communities are expected to take the full risk of patient rehabilitation, in that their safety and wellbeing is given no consideration whatsoever.

One mother, for instance, whose son was murdered in cold blood, faces the situation where the murderer, who did not even have to stand trial as his use of drugs ensured that he was not in his right mind at the time of the murder, can be granted leave of absence, or even discharged, at any time without prior notice to herself or anyone else. This mother believes that not only is her life, and the lives of her family, in danger, but also the entire community. She lives daily with the worry that this conman and murderer will be allowed back into the community without any warning.

The ACDP moved amendments which addressed these concerns in the portfolio committee, but in spite of broad support in the committee, especially from those who have actually worked with mentally ill patients, and know first- hand the deception involved, even the agreed minor concession with regard to leave of absence has been left out. Therefore, this Bill was not accepted unanimously; the amended version was.

We call again on the Minister and the department seriously to consider the need for the families of victims to be given the opportunity to appeal the leave of absence and discharge of state patients who pose a threat to society, or, at the very least, be informed of such decisions. This is of great concern to the community and the ACDP.

Ms S K MNUMZANA: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, we are replacing the old Mental Health Act, because it was repressive and discriminatory against our people. Therefore, we are introducing new legislation which promotes care and treatment, and recognises the rights of patients.

This Bill protects the rights of mentally ill patients, within the context of a human rights framework and the Constitution. The Bill briefly outlines various objectives, such as the regulation of the mental health care environment; provides for the best possible mental health care treatment and rehabilitation that available resources can afford; promotes equity, efficiency and best practice; co-ordinates access to provide mental health care within general health care services; and crucially stipulates the rights and obligations of mental health care users and the obligations of health care providers.

One of the problems our mental health care institutions have been burdened with is the large numbers of people that must be seen at tertiary level, and this results in pressure. Therefore, Chapter II, clause 4 of the Bill clearly outlines the implementation of policies and measures to be taken by the state to address this issue.

The Bill states clearly that the Minister and provincial heads must provide designated health facilities to ensure the provision of mental health care, treatment and rehabilitation services at primary, secondary and tertiary levels and at health establishments referred to in clause 5(1), which one of my colleagues will be dealing with. Also in the Bill is a move towards treatment and rehabilitation services in communities.

The Bill emphasises the rights and interests of mental health care users. Our mental health care professionals must be trained within the human rights framework to recognise that not only should medical treatment be considered a basic right for people with mental illness, but also that these people should be protected from potential dangers.

The legislation encourages transparency by the institutions and allows for public scrutiny, which was not the case in the old Act. Users will be protected from exploitation and from the abuse of degrading treatment, because the heads of health care facilities must take the necessary steps to ensure that abuse does not occur. Also, all mental institutions are now required by law to submit periodic review reports on the mental status of their users, their long-term and short-term treatment goals, and discharges. These are practical steps to prevent the abuse we have experienced in the past.

The controversial aspect in the Bill is the limitation on intimate adult relationships. Sexual contact may only be prohibited if the user’s ability to give consent is diminished. This is in line with international policy. Another first is the right of the user to legal representation, and the state must provide the necessary legal services, especially in the case of discrimination.

This Bill deals with these complex issues in a very substantial manner. The department has introduced an excellent piece of legislation that this Government can be proud of, and I think we need to acknowledge that. We say: ``Health for all, mental health care for all’’ within the context of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Ha re di otle mohatla’ kgwiti hona mona, hobane nako e se e lekane motinyane. ANC e tshehetsa Molao ona. [Ditlatse.] [Let us stop right here because time is no longer on our side. The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]]

Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, mental disability, like physical disability, is part and parcel of all nations. The way a nation treats a mentally disabled people reflects the level of civilisation of that nation. All of us have experienced the problem of mental disability in our homes, communities and places of work. Although we could all be well today, we could get ill tomorrow.

I have vivid recollections of Dimitri Tsafendas, who assassinated the prime minister of South Africa in this very House. He was declared white, and thereafter black; normal, and thereafter insane. I personally had a glimpse of him on Robben Island when he had lost his whiteness, and later also his sanity. He ended his life in a mental institution.

The aim of this Bill is to provide for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of persons who are mentally ill. It prescribes procedures for diagnosis and admission of people who are mentally afflicted, and ensures conditions of proper care for these people and their property.

In accordance with our Constitution, the Bill ensures that mental health services are provided without any form of discrimination. A complicating factor is the cultural and religious diversity in our country. Traditional healers have cared for people with mental disabilities for centuries. Many people today strongly believe in traditional healers. Even if they cannot consult them during the day, they would consult them at night.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Please carry on, hon member. I was just trying to quieten the House. [Laughter.]

Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, I was still talking about consulting traditional healers at night. It is our strong view that the Bill does not go far enough in recognising the role of traditional healers and prescribing that all Western institutions such as hospitals should be integrated and co-ordinated so that traditional ways of life can also be accommodated. The holistic approach is necessary in order to remove the label of inferiority and to destroy the stigma associated with mental illness. [Time expired.]

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, we are all aware of the complexities that accompanied the drafting of this Bill. The five years taken should not be viewed as incompetence on the part of persons appointed to draft the Bill, but rather as the working years it took to achieve the most efficient Bill to deal with mental health.

Mental disabilities present themselves within our population. Because mental patients are part of society, they too are represented by the national Constitution and therefore entitled to the appropriate care, treatment and rehabilitation services that this Bill sets out to provide. Carefully structured and upholding our Constitution, the Bill also sets out to promote and safeguard the rights of people with mental disabilities.

The provisions put in place to regulate the mental health care environment appear to deal with the above adequately, and it is now hoped that these provisions will be strictly adhered to in order to attain these goals. The differentiation of rights and obligations of mental health care users and providers certainly provides for direction and clarification as to their position, powers and authority. Further, the regulations regarding access to and provision of mental health care will provide for a system detailing the allocation of these services. However, it would be interesting to note the criteria used in establishing this regulatory system.

Noting the incompetence of some mentally ill persons to manage their estates, it is comforting to note the provisions made that govern the way these are to be dealt with by a court of law. The MF supports the Mental Health Care Bill. [Applause.]

Mnr C AUCAMP: Mnr die Voorsitter, persoonlik is ek met groot dankbaarheid vervul toe ek hierdie wetsontwerp bestudeer het. Die lot van mense met geestesiektes is ‘n saak waarmee ek uiteraard in 22 jaar in die bediening heelwat te doen gekry het. Dit is ‘n lot wat ‘n mens aangryp, veral omdat daar in die samelewing veel groter deernis bestaan vir mense met liggaamlike siektes as vir dié wat geestelik siek is. Hierdie soms uitgeworpenes in ons samelewing verdien inderdaad spesiale aandag.

Die doelwit om te verseker dat gepaste sorg, behandeling en rehabilitasiedienste aan hulle verskaf word, is bewonderenswaardig, asook die doelwit om hul menseregte, maar veral hul menswaardigheid, te beskerm. Uiteraard kan ‘n wet van 1973 nie meer aan bogenoemde behoeftes voldoen nie, en die AEB is van oortuiging dat hierdie wetsontwerp juis dáárin slaag en wil dit van harte steun. Die volgende innovasies word veral verwelkom. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairman, I personally was filled with great gratitude when I studied this Bill. The lot of people with mental illnesses is a matter with which I obviously had much contact during the 22 years that I was in the ministry of religion. It is a fate that touches one, especially because in society there is far greater empathy for people with physical diseases than for those who are mentally ill. These people who are sometimes outcasts in our society indeed deserve special attention.

The objective to ensure that they are provided with appropriate care, treatment and rehabilitation services is admirable, as is the objective to protect their human rights, and especially their dignity. Naturally an Act dating back to 1973 can no longer fulfil the aforementioned needs, and the AEB is convinced that this Bill will succeed in doing precisely that and wants to support it wholeheartedly. The following innovations are especially welcome.]

Firstly, we welcome the mental health review boards to protect patients from arbitrary or unnecessary committal and retention. This is not a mere legal function that could be performed by a magistrate, but a professional function requiring a holistic approach. The introduction of a 72-hour assessment period prior to certification and involuntary admission at a psychiatric hospital in order to minimise the possibility of unnecessary trauma, is also welcomed. Accompanying this is the reduction in the period of review to prevent unnecessarily lengthy retention. The inclusion of the chapter on patient rights to minimise discrimination against these people is also welcomed.

The AEB also welcomes the transparency that will be effected by the lifting of the prohibition on reporting of conditions in psychiatric institutions. This will help in preventing institutions from acting like detention barracks.

The AEB calls on the Minister and the department to accompany this milestone legislation with a campaign to promote greater sensitivity and awareness on the part of the public for the mentally ill. Let us live together in such a way that we care for each other, and prevent external factors that can so easily lead to these diseases being contracted.

The AEB congratulates everyone involved in the preparation of this Bill. [Time expired.]

Dr E E JASSAT: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, the culture, civilisation and value system of a country and its people can be measured by the way its inhabitants care for their most vulnerable and powerless members of society, such as children, women, the aged and the physically and mentally disabled.

Our own Constitution adopted in 1996, in Chapter 1, which deals with the ``Founding Provisions’’, speaks of affording human dignity, achievement of equality and advancement of human rights and freedoms for its people. In Chapter 2, the Bill of Rights affirms that the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone, on one or more grounds including, amongst others, disability.

The ANC, soon after coming into power in 1994, released the Reconstruction and Development Programme, which advocated that the RDP must provide for improved community care, rehabilitation and education for all disabled people, particularly the mentally challenged, moving away from the custodial and institutional care that was suggested in the Mental Health Act of 1973.

The SA Health Review, published by the Health System Trust in 1997 commented:

The past ideological framework to mental health care has been a combination of racial discrimination, paternalism and institutionalisation. Mental health services have been vertical, fragmented and overemphasised curative services.

It further went on to state:

There is no parity in the standard of care in psychiatric institutions. The standard of care in formerly black institutions is below that of formerly white institutions.

The 1999 Health Review mentions that the key strategic aim to advance equity in the public mental health service is the transformation of the service to one that is comprehensive, community-based and integrated with the other health services in this country. Existing public sector mental health services are least accessible to the most vulnerable sectors of the population and are concentrated in psychiatric institutions, as opposed to other levels of care. To address this, they suggested a completely revised Act, which we now have in the form of the Bill before hon members this afternoon, namely the Mental Health Care Bill.

Further impetus to scrap the Mental Health Act 18 of 1973, also came about as a result of a report titled ``Human rights violations and alleged malpractices in psychiatric institutions’’ commissioned by the former Health Minister, Dr Dlamini-Zuma, in January 1996. This followed horrifying press reports of widespread abuse, assault and neglect at some institutions in this country.

After four years of painstaking work and intense consultation with various stakeholders, we have a very humane and compassionate Bill before us. The portfolio committee wishes to record its appreciation to Prof Mervyn Freeman and his team for the superb work they have done in crafting this Bill. The critical difference between the Mental Health Act of 1973 and the present Bill before this House has been captured in the preamble to the latter. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, please, when you do speak to each other, do so in a manner that does not disturb the speaker at the podium. You are shouting to each other across the floor and that is totally unacceptable.

Dr E E JASSAT: Chairperson, whereas the 1973 Act was passed to provide for the reception, detention and treatment of persons who are mentally ill'', the preamble to the present Bill under discussion aimsto provide for the care, treatment and rehabilitation of persons who are mentally ill’’. What a difference! More in consonance with our newfound democracy and Constitution we, in the ANC, support this Bill. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson, I think that everything has been said. Ngabe ngiyayona indaba uma ngingaqala ngiphindaphinde konke osekushiwo … [I will be messing up the whole story if I repeat what has already been said.]

… except to note, of course, that this is the first time in the history of the Portfolio Committee on Health that there has been unanimity on a piece of legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr M J ELLIS: The Minister feels better about it.

The MINISTER: I feel good. [Interjections.]

Engikushoyo ngukuthi, ngokukhumbula kwami, kuyaqala ngqa ukuthi sivumelane sonke ngomThetho. Lona-ke, njengoba sazi, ngumThetho wokunakekela labo abakhubazeke ngokwengqondo. Bekufanele ukuthi ngempela ngempela sibakhusele laba bantu ngoba kudala benganakekelwa.

Mangithi nje ukuphawula into eyodwa noma ezimbili ngibhekise elungwini elihloniphekile uKalyan. (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.) [What I am saying is that as far as I can remember, this is the first time that we agree on a Bill. This Bill, as we all know, is about caring for people who are psychologically disturbed. We must really protect them, because in the past they were not protected.

Let me say one or two things to the hon Kalyan.]

Of course, it is not ironic that we are discussing and debating this Bill this month. I think, in fact, it is appropriate that we do so, if indeed it is mental care awareness month. I would have thought that she would have actually appreciated the fact that this Bill is being discussed and debated during this month. I do not see any irony in doing so.

To the hon member Mrs Dudley I just want to say that perhaps she needs to read my input and also to read Mrs Malumise’s speech because all the concerns that she has raised were actually covered in both those speeches. Ngicela ukubonga ikomidi ngendlela eliqhube ngayo size sifike kuleli zinga nalo mThetho. Ngicela ukubonga uSihlalo wekomidi namalungu onke eKomidi lezeMpilo ngokubambisana kwabo baze bafike kulesi sikhathi. Ngicela futhi ukubonga uSolwazi Freeman. (Translation of Zulu paragraph follows.)

[I would like to thank the committee for the way it worked until we came up with this Bill. I would like to thank the chairperson of the committee, and all the members of the Health committee for working together up to this point. I would also like to say thank you to Prof Freeman.]

I also want to thank Prof M Freeman. I know how hard he worked with his team to ensure that we have this excellent piece of legislation that addresses the needs of people with mental disabilities within the framework of human rights.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, before I put the Bill to you, on behalf of the House, I want to wish Dr Nkomo everything of the best. Go with our best wishes. [Applause.] Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

                           POINT OF ORDER

                              (Ruling)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, before we proceed to the next order, I need to give a ruling. During the debate on the Land Affairs General Amendment Bill on Thursday, 25 October 2001, the hon Dr C P Mulder raised a point of order about remarks made by the hon the Deputy Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs.

I did rule, at the time, that the Deputy Minister, in my view, was speaking in general terms and not referring specifically to the hon member Mr P J Groenewald. However, at the request of Dr Mulder I undertook to study the Hansard and to rule on the matter at a subsequent sitting of the House. Having now had the opportunity to study the relevant Hansard transcript, I wish to rule as follows. The contested remark is contained in the following paragraph, of which the Afrikaans parts have been translated, and I quote:

We are not talking about these hon members, but we are talking about the people. What I heard when the hon member Groenewald was talking was that he used words I have heard before when he said: These people who want to come and bury their fathers and forefathers and afterfathers.'' This is the same tone I hear from people saying:Oh, it is once again the black people who want to have funerals and stay away from work.’’ This is a racist attitude that must be eradicated in this country.

Using words such as ``these people’’ is, in itself, disparaging and was clearly perceived as such by the hon the Deputy Minister. He is saying that the hon member Mr Groenewald is repeating a general perception about race and culture that exists in a certain segment of the population, and that his remarks have a racist undertone.

However, one cannot say that the hon the Deputy Minister, by pointing that out, is necessarily implying that the hon Mr Groenewald is a racist. One cannot curtail members to the extent that they cannot challenge anything another member has said, but there has to be a constructive element to it, as was the case here. What the hon the Deputy Minister said is, therefore, not unparliamentary. [Applause.]

                CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Order disposed of without debate.

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House, in terms of Rule 272(4)(c), pass the original Bill as approved by the House on 11 May 2001 without incorporating the proposed amendments from the National Council of Provinces. Agreed to.

Bill accordingly passed again without further amendment.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr N M DUMA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes reports that six men were arrested for raping a nine-month-old baby in Upington;

(2) believes that this is the worst form of child abuse, barbaric behaviour and an evil which must be uprooted in our society;

(3) further believes that families and communities must work together in ensuring that the rights of the girl child are protected;

(4) condemns the raping of this infant; and

(5) calls for a possible maximum sentence to be imposed on the perpetrators of this heinous act.

Mr M J ELLIS: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes with appreciation the remarks of Mr Marthinus van Schalkwyk on 30 June 2001 that:

     The DA must succeed because without a strong, united and
     successful DA the ANC will be free to abuse its power unchecked.
     If, after only seven years of ANC rule, things are this bad, how
     bad will they be in fourteen years, or in twenty one?;

(2) concurs with these sentiments; and

(3) endorses all efforts to strengthen the DA.

Mr J H SLABBERT: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) notes the Minister of Transport’s effort on the development of the strategy called The Road to Safety - 2001- 2005 to be launched on 20 November 2001;

(2) further notes that this is an integrated strategy working from the bottom up and involving many Government departments in the different spheres, communities, the private sector and other institutions;

(3) appreciates that this is the missing component in the Arrive Alive programme; and

(4) calls upon all drivers and all communities to give this new effort their fullest support. Rev A D GOOSEN: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that 18 people were killed whilst attending a church service in Pakistan;

(2) believes that the killing of Christians is a serious assault on freedom of religion and worship;

(3) is of the opinion that the United States air strikes against the Taliban government cannot be used as an excuse for religious intolerance;

(4) condemns the brutal killing of Christians in Pakistan; and

(5) calls on the Pakistan government to act swiftly in bringing the perpetrators of this barbaric action to book and to start working to engender respect for freedom of religion and worship.

Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) agrees that a realignment of the South African political landscape has become inevitable after the 1994 democratic elections;

(2) agrees that a typical Westminster democratic model is neither suited to Africa nor to South Africa;

(3) notes that the New NP has recommitted itself to the principle of co- operative government as confirmed in its election manifesto in 1999; and

(4) also notes that the New NP would like to be part of solutions instead of ending up in a political dead-end street.

[Applause.]

Prof L M MBADI: Chairperson … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

Prof L M MBADI: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:

That the House -

(1) notes with shock and dismay the confirmed leak of South Africa’s first nationally set science matric exam paper;

(2) further notes that this travesty of confidentiality will affect thousands of matriculants, as they have to rewrite the paper; (3) calls on the Department of Education to -

   (a)  ensure that all measures are taken to protect the legitimacy of
       nationally set exam papers; and


   (b)  bring the perpetrators to book;

(4) cautions all matriculants to avoid the temptation of engaging in unethical and criminal behaviour by buying leaked papers; and

(5) wishes all matric candidates the very best for the remainder of the exams.

Mrs L MALONEY: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  the disturbing reports that the US air strikes against
       Afghanistan are likely to continue into the holy month of
       Ramadan;


   (b)  the mounting evidence of high casualties among noncombatant
       civilians;


   (c)  the evidence that Red Cross/Crescent Hospitals, relief storage
       facilities and ordinary homes have been targets; and


   (d)  mounting public concern in this country and elsewhere that this
       bombing campaign is more likely to produce a massive
       humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan than to flush out the Al
       Qaeda network; and

(2) calls upon the governments of the US and Britain to reconsider the bombing campaign and to respect Ramadan, a month that is holy to one of the world’s great religions.

[Applause.]

Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) observes with interest the cracks within the DA caused by the secession of the New NP;

(2) notes that this was a marriage of convenience which has collapsed because of incompatibility and not because of the minor Peter Marais debacle;

(3) further notes that there are a few more alliances of this type in this House which certainly await the same fate; and

(4) recommends that the open door of the PAC be considered by all who seek to build a new nonracial Africanist South Africa which affirms loyalty and dedication to Africa and the primacy of the needs of the poor.

[Interjections.] [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITEES: Order!

Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the MF:

That the House:

(1) notes the devastating killing of seven innocent Afghan children by the United States military attacks over the past weekend:

(2) calls for peace talks to stop this aimless taking of innocent lives and that the price paid for one innocentlife should not be the life of another innocent victim;

(3) further notes the Islamic celebration of Lailatul Baraa on the 15th Shabaan, a night when an individual’s good and bad deeds are taken up for record; and

(4) wishes all Muslims well on this great night of repentance.

[Applause.]

Mr E M SIGWELA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that a women-driven project of tomato farming in Umtata is registering success beyond expectations;

(2) believes that the success of this project lies in the determination and the commitment of the women participating in this project to eradicate poverty and work for a better life for all; and

(3) commends the women participating in this project for their determination in fighting poverty. Malibongwe! [Praise!] [Interjections.]

HON MEMBERS: Igama lamakhosikazi. [The name of women.]

Mr R J HEINE: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that according to the influential magazine Institutional Investor, bankers blame Zimbabwe directly for impacting negatively on South Africa’s credit rating;

(2) further notes that -

   (a)  Zimbabwe's credit rating dropped 13,5 points over the past 30
       months - the biggest drop of any country worldwide; and


   (b)  South Africa's credit rating dropped 5,6 points in the past 12
       months; and

(3) therefore urges the ANC Government to use its influence in Zimbabwe to correct those things which are impacting negatively on South Africa’s economy instead of complaining about events in the Middle East over which South Africa has no influence.

[Applause.]

Dr R RABINOWITZ: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) congratulates the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism on the role she and her committee have played in monitoring the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in South Africa; (2) also congratulates the farmers of the Makatini Flats in KwaZulu-Natal on the effective use of genetically engineered cotton;

(3) notes that the sale of genetically modified seeds by large private companies could result in their monopolising seed production and sale, thereby hurting small-scale and organic farmers;

(4) further notes that there could be serious consequences to the use of GMOs if they are poorly monitored, to the extent that no less a person than Stephen Hawking has warned that humankind will probably be destroyed by an engineered virus; and

(5) therefore calls on the Ministers of Health, of Agriculture and of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to better co-ordinate the work of regulating GMOs and to prevent the technology advancing faster than our ability to cope with it. Ms H M MPAKA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) believes that the enlightened education of our children on the basic facts of human biology and sexuality is essential for an informed, responsible and humane society;

(2) further believes that such education in our public schools has a special urgency in the context of the Aids epidemic;

(3) condemns the cheap attempt by the ACDP in this House last week to suggest that educational diagrams are pornographic; and

(4) deplores the hypocrisy of this action which was underlined by the evident glee with which the ACDP members displayed these so-called pornographic diagrams in the House and before the TV cameras. [Applause.]

Mr J J DOWRY: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House notes that -

(1) the hon Mr Leon has failed to build a strong, constructive and effective opposition and to build bridges between all communities;

(2) due to his autocratic leadership style and poor advice from his spin doctors he was unable to give substance to this ideal, putting posture and spin above substance, soundbite above patriotism and photo opportunities above delivery;

(3) the hon Leon accused Mr Peter Marais, mayor of the Unicity of Cape Town, of failing to lead in a manner that unites, rather than divides, and therefore expelled Mr Marais in a political kangaroo court, but this is the very task that he himself could not master; and

(4) the DA’s slogan ``a party for all the people’’ has become an illusion, because in truth the DA is a party for a small group of people and cannot accommodate the needs of all the people of South Africa.

[Applause.]

Mr S ABRAHM: Chairperson … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!

Mr S ABRAM: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  the alarming spectre of religious intolerance which led to the
       massacre of Christian worshippers at a church in Bahawalpur,
       Pakistan;


   (b)  the regularity with which US missiles continue to miss their
       mark in Afghanistan, resulting in the deaths of innocent
       civilians and the destruction of a Red Cross warehouse; and


   (c)  what Indian novelist, Arundhati Roy, recently wrote:


          While perpetrators of the September 11 attacks have to be
          hunted down, bombing will only create a new generation of
          terrorists. Will burning the haystack find you the needle, or
          will it escalate the anger and make the world a living hell
          for all of us?;

(2) therefore calls for understanding and religious tolerance amongst mankind and condemns all dastardly acts and unnecessary loss of life; and (3) requests our Government to call on the US and its allies to reconsider their ill-fated bombing campaign and to pursue a diplomatic course in bringing perpetrators to book.

[Applause.]

                   CONGRATULATIONS TO SA SPORTSMEN

                         (Draft Resolution)

The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the House -

(1) congratulates the US Open Golf Champion, Retief Goosen, on winning the Spanish Open in Madrid and thereby becoming the European Order of Merit Player for 2001;

(2) congratulates the South African Protea Cricket team on their resounding victory over India in the Tri-Nation series last Friday and wishes them well in their impending tour of Australia; and

(3) congratulates the Western Province Rugby team on winning the Currie Cup and commends both Western Province and the Sharks for the exhilarating final and the fine spirit in which it was played.

[Applause.]

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at 18:56. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

                       MONDAY, 29 OCTOBER 2001

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on the Lotteries Amendment Bill [B 81 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 26 October 2001:

   The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, having considered the subject of the Lotteries Amendment Bill [B 81 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 81A - 2001].

2. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Amendment Bill [B 68 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 74), dated 23 October 2001:

   The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the subject of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Amendment Bill [B 68 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 74), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 74 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 68A - 2001].

3. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Second Amendment Bill [B 78 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 74), dated 23 October 2001:

   The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the subject of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Second Amendment Bill [B 78 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 74), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 74 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 78A - 2001].

                   TUESDAY, 30 OCTOBER 2001
   

ANNOUNCEMENTS: National Assembly:

1. The Speaker:

 The following member has been appointed by the National Assembly Rules
 Committee as Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Delegated Legislation
 in terms of Rule 182 of the National Assembly:


 Masutha, M T (ANC)

1. The Speaker:

 Bills passed by National Assembly on 30 October 2001: To be submitted
 to President of the Republic for assent:


 (i)    National Land Transport Transition Amendment Bill [B 39B - 2001]
     (National Council of Provinces - sec 76).


 (ii)   Correctional Services Amendment Bill [B 8B - 2001] (National
     Assembly - sec 75). TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister of Finance:

 (1)    Adjustment Appropriation Bill [B 82 - 2001].


 (2)    Medium Term Budget Policy Statement 2001 [RP 178-2001].


 (3)    Adjustments Estimates of National Expenditure 2001 [RP 181-
     2001], which includes:


     1. Memorandum on Vote No 1 - "Presidency", Adjustments Estimates,
          2001-2002;


     2. Memorandum on Vote No 2 - "Parliament", Adjustments Estimates,
          2001-2002;
     3. Memorandum on Vote No 3 - "Foreign Affairs", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     4. Memorandum on Vote No 4 - "Home Affairs", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     5. Memorandum on Vote No 5 - "Provincial and Local Government",
          Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     6. Memorandum on Vote No 6 - "Government Communication and
          Information System", Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     7. Memorandum on Vote No 7 - "National Treasury", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     8. Memorandum on Vote No 8 - "Public Enterprises", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     9. Memorandum on Vote No 9 - "Public Service and Administration",
          Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     10.     Memorandum on Vote No 10 - "Public Service Commission",
          Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     11.     Memorandum on Vote No 11 - "South African Management
          Development Institute", Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     12.     Memorandum on Vote No 12 - "Statistics South Africa",
          Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     13.     Memorandum on Vote No 13 - "Arts, Culture, Science and
          Technology", Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     14.     Memorandum on Vote No 14 - "Education", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     15.     Memorandum on Vote No 15 - "Health", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     16.     Memorandum on Vote No 16 - "Housing", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     17.     Memorandum on Vote No 17 - "Social Development",
          Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     18.     Memorandum on Vote No 18 - "Sport and Recreation South
          Africa", Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     19.     Memorandum on Vote No 19 - "Correctional Services",
          Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     20.     Memorandum on Vote No 20 - "Defence", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     21.     Memorandum on Vote No 21 - "Independent Complaints
          Directorate", Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;
     22.     Memorandum on Vote No 22 - "Justice and Constitutional
          Development", Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     23.     Memorandum on Vote No 23 - "Safety and Security",
          Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     24.     Memorandum on Vote No 24 - "Agriculture", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     25.     Memorandum on Vote No 25 - "Communications", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     26.     Memorandum on Vote No 26 - "Environmental Affairs and
          Tourism", Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     27.     Memorandum on Vote No 27 - "Labour", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     28.     Memorandum on Vote No 28 - "Land Affairs", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     29.     Memorandum on Vote No 29 - "Minerals and Energy",
          Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     30.     Memorandum on Vote No 30 - "Public Works", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     31.     Memorandum on Vote No 31 - "Trade and Industry",
          Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002;


     32.     Memorandum on Vote No 32 - "Transport", Adjustments
          Estimates, 2001-2002;


     33.     Memorandum on Vote No 33 - "Water Affairs and Forestry",
          Adjustments Estimates, 2001-2002.

1. The Minister of Transport: (1) Report and Financial Statements of the Road Accident Fund for 1999-2000, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 1999-2000 [RP 141-2000].

 (2)    Report and Financial Statements of the South African Maritime
     Safety Authority for 1999-2000, including the Report of the
     Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 1999-2000.

1. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:

 Rules and Regulations in terms of the Promotion of Administrative
 Justice Act, 2000 (Act No 3 of 2000).

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly:

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Labour on the Unemployment Insurance Bill [B 3 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 26 October 2001:

 The Portfolio Committee on Labour, having considered the subject of the
 Unemployment Insurance Bill [B 3 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75),
 referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a
 section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 3A - 2001].


 The Committee, having heard and considered evidence, further wishes to
 report as follows:


 A.     Introduction


     1. The Committee extended an invitation to interested and affected
          parties to submit written and oral representations on the
          Bill, by placing and advertising in the media during the
          weekend of 11 March 2001.


     2. The public hearings were scheduled for 19 and 20 March 2001.
          Submissions were received from the following parties:


          (a) Mrs B Bird (written)
          (b) Black Sash (written and oral)
          (c) Business South Africa (written and oral)
          (d) Centre for International and Comparative Labour and Social
              Security Law (written and oral)
          (e) Commission on Gender Equality (written and oral)
          (f) Community Constituency (written)
          (g) Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) (written
              and oral)
          (h) Disabled People South Africa (DPSA) (written and oral)
          (i) Pan African Lawyers for Human Rights (written)
          (j) Payroll Authors Group (PAG) (written and oral)
          (k) South African Catholic Bishops' Conference (written and
              oral)
          (l) South African Council of Churches (written and oral)
          (m) South African Domestic Service & Allied Workers Union
              (SADSAWU) (written and oral)
          (n) The Federation of Unions of South Africa (FEDUSA) (written
              and oral)
          (o) Women on Farms Project (written and oral)


     3. The Committee reiteriates its commitment to continue working
          with all stakeholders to ensure that Parliament remains
          accessible, transparent and accountable.


     4. The Committee expresses its appreciation to the parties who
          contributed to the process of the public hearings.


 B.     Findings


     During the public hearings, concerns were raised about the
     exclusion of public servants, set out in clause 3(1)(c) of the
     Bill. After consultation with the government on this matter, the
     majority of Committee members agreed that, given the urgency of
     finalising this draft legislation, the provisions in the Bill
     should remain. However, the Committee sympathises with the view
     that public servants should be covered.


 C.     Recommendations


     Because of the concerns raised during the public hearings, the
     Committee requests:


     1. That the Minister of Labour, in consultation with the Ministers
          of Finance and of the Public Service and Administration,
          investigate the possibility of including public servants as
          well as the financial implications thereof under the
          Unemployment Insurance Fund. This investigation should be
          completed within nine months and a report should be presented
          to the Committee on the outcome of the said investigation.


     2. That the Minister of Labour, in consultation with the office of
          the Presidency and the Commission on Gender Equality (CGE),
          investigate the current formulation of maternity rights as set
          out in section 24 of the Bill, in order to ensure full
          coverage for the most vulnerable workers, as well as the
          financial implications thereof under the Unemployment
          Insurance Fund. This investigation should be completed within
          nine months and a report should be presented to the Committee
          on the outcome of the said investigation.


 D.     Conclusion


     Political parties represented in the Committee and parties that
     appeared before the Committee were unanimous about the need for
     this legislation to be passed by Parliament.

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs on the Animal Identification Bill [B 49 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 30 October 2001:

   The Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs, having considered the subject of the Animal Identification Bill [B 49 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill without amendment.

2. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Judicial Officers Amendment Bill [B 72 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 30 October 2001:

 A.     The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional
     Development, having considered the subject of the Judicial
     Officers Amendment Bill [B 72 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec
     75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism
     as a section 75 Bill -


     1. recommends that, because of the delay with the introduction of
          the Bill in Parliament after the deadline of 17 August 2001,
          and pursuant time constraints, some of the provisions of the
          Bill be held in abeyance until the 2002 session of Parliament;


     2. presents the Judges' Remuneration and Conditions of Employment
          Bill  [B 83 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75); and


     3. regards the classification of the Judges' Remuneration and
          Conditions of Employment Bill [B 83 - 2001] as a section 75
          Bill.
 B.     The Committee wishes to report further, as follows:


     1. The Committee -


          (a) having been briefed by the Department of Justice and
              Constitutional Development on the Judicial Officers
              Amendment Bill;


          (b) having received written submissions on the Bill and having
              held public hearings thereon;


          (c) having considered the scope of all the issues dealt with
              in the Bill, most of which involve comprehensive and
              fundamental changes to existing laws;


          (d) having pointed out that the Bill was only submitted to
              Parliament after 17 August 2001, the deadline for the
              submission of draft legislation to Parliament for
              consideration during the 2001 session of Parliament; and


          (e) having taken into account the limited time remaining to
              deal with issues of this nature during this 2001 session
              of Parliament, which is drawing to a close,


          was of the opinion that it should present its own Bill, in
          terms of the Rules of Parliament, in order to deal with only
          those urgent matters contained in the Judicial Officers
          Amendment Bill which cannot be held in abeyance until the 2002
          session of Parliament.


     2. The Committee was consequently of the view that it would be
          expedient to deal with those issues in the Judicial Officers
          Amendment Bill which emanate from the Republic of South Africa
          Constitution Amendment Bill, 2001, which relate to courts and
          the administration of justice, as contemplated in Chapter 8 of
          the Constitution, namely the constitutional amendments
          relating to -


          (a) the offices of Chief Justice of South Africa and Deputy
              Chief Justice and President and Deputy President of the
              Supreme Court of Appeal; and


          (b) the terms of office of Constitutional Court judges.


     3. Whilst confining itself to the issues referred to in paragraph
          2 above, which entail amendments to virtually every section of
          the Judges' Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act,
          1989 (Act No. 88 of 1989), the Committee came to the
          conclusion that, rather than to present cumbersome and
          cluttered amending legislation, it would be more appropriate
          to recommend an entirely new statute to regulate the
          remuneration and conditions of employment of Constitutional
          Court judges and judges. This would, at the same time,
          rationalise the laws regulating this important aspect of the
          administration of justice, hence the inclusion of provisions
          in the Bill which purport to make the legislation applicable
          throughout the Republic and which envisage the repeal of the
          Judges' Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, 1989,
          and the corresponding legislation in the former homelands,
          which is still applicable in those geographical areas.


     4. The Judges' Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Bill,
          2001, presented by the Committee, largely encapsulates the
          principles contained in the Judges' Remuneration and
          Conditions of Employment Act, 1989. The main differences
          between the existing legislation and the proposed legislation
          are to be found in the provisions which deal with the offices
          of Chief Justice of South Africa and Deputy Chief Justice and
          President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Appeal
          and the terms of office of Constitutional Court judges, the
          latter category in particular requiring comprehensive
          adaptations to the existing legislation.


          During the course of revisiting the provisions of the existing
          Judges' Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, 1989,
          to bring them into line with the constitutional amendments,
          the Committee has also suggested amendments of a technical
          nature in an effort to streamline and improve the legislation
          as a whole.


     5. As indicated in paragraph 1 above, the Committee intends
          finalising the issues not dealt with in the Judicial Officers
          Amendment Bill during the 2002 session of Parliament, when
          those important issues and principles can be debated without
          any time constraints.


     6. During its deliberations on the Bill, the Committee's attention
          was drawn to the fact that the Judges' Remuneration and
          Conditions of Employment Act, 1989 (Act No. 88 of 1989), which
          regulates the remuneration and conditions of employment of
          judges, is silent on the position of a judge who is removed
          from office in terms of section 177 of the Constitution
          (impeachment). The question was raised whether a judge who is
          so removed from office should receive any benefits, and if so,
          what benefits.


          The Committee consequently recommends that the Department of
          Justice and Constitutional Development be requested to
          investigate this aspect and to submit appropriate legislative
          proposals regarding the matter to the Committee at the
          beginning of the 2002 session of Parliament, when it considers
          those provisions of the Judicial Officers Amendment Bill which
          have been held in abeyance until then.


     7. The Committee was also at pains to point out that -


          (a) both the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
              Amendment Bill, 2001, and the Judges' Remuneration and
              Conditions of Employment Bill, 2001, save for Clause
              16(4) of the latter Bill, do not contain commencement
              provisions; and


          (b) it is consequently imperative to ensure that the
              Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Amendment
              Bill, 2001, is enacted into law before the Judges'
              Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Bill, 2001, but
              not later than 20 November 2001, since, as mentioned in
              paragraph 2 above, some of the provisions of the latter
              Bill emanate from provisions contained in the said
              constitutional amendments.


     8. Clause 16(1) provides for the continuation of regulations made
          in terms of the Judges' Remuneration and Conditions of
          Employment Act, 1989 (Act No. 88 of 1989), the Judges'
          Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, 1989 (Act No.
          27 of 1989 (Bophuthatswana), and Decree No. 19 (Judges'
          Remuneration and Conditions of Service (of 1990) (Decree No.
          19 of 1990) (Transkei). In the interests of legal certainty,
          the Committee requests the Department to address this issue
          and to prepare and promote one set of regulations in terms of
          Clause 13 as a matter of urgency, but within three months
          after the adoption of this Report.


 Report to be considered.

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Criminal Procedure Second Amendment Bill [B 45 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 30 October 2001:

 The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development,
 having considered the subject of the Criminal Procedure Second
 Amendment Bill [B 45 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to
 it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill,
 reports the Bill with amendments [B 45A - 2001], and endorses the
 classification of the Bill as a section 75 Bill.


 The Committee wishes to report further, as follows:


 1.     In terms of the new section 105A(11), which is inserted in the
     Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977), by clause 2 of
     the Bill, the National Director of Public Prosecutions is required
     to issue directives regarding all matters which are reasonably
     necessary or expedient to be prescribed in order to achieve the
     objects of that section. However, in terms of clause 3 the Bill
     will commence on the date of publication in the Government
     Gazette. Hence some time will elapse between the commencement of
     the Bill and the issuing of the directives. As the provisions of
     the new section 105A will have limited application without the
     required directives being in place and in order to avoid any
     practical problems with the application of those provisions until
     such time as the directives have been issued, the Committee
     requests the National Director of Public Prosecutions to -


     (a)     authorise only senior members of the prosecuting
          authority, for example the Directors of Public Prosecutions,
          in terms of the new section 105A(1) to apply the provisions of
          that section during the period concerned; and


     (b)     give his immediate attention to the issuing of the
          required directives, in particular those dealing with offences
          referred to in the Schedule to the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
          1997 (Act No. 105 of 1997), or any other offence for which a
          minimum penalty is prescribed in the law creating that
          offence.


 2.     The Committee further wishes to draw the attention of the
     National Director of Public Prosecutions to the provisions of -


     (a)     the new section 105A(11)(b)(iv), requiring the prosecuting
          authority to keep comprehensive records and statistics
          relating to the implementation and application of that
          section; and


     (b)     the new section 105A(12), in terms of which he is required
          to, at least once every year, submit those records and
          statistics to Parliament.


     The Committee further requests him to ensure that those provisions
     are complied with diligently so as to enable the Committee and the
     Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to evaluate
     the efficiency of the new provisions and to amend those provisions
     to enhance their efficiency, if necessary.
 3.     This Report must be forwarded immediately to the National
     Director of Public Prosecutions for his attention.

Report to be considered.