The Portfolio Committee on Transport met to deliberate on the amendments to the National Land Transport Amendment Bill [B7-2016]. The meeting had been adjourned after Parliamentary Legal Adviser, State Legal Adviser and the Department of Transport (DoT) team had disagreed on the wording of Clause 7 on the 20 February 2018. The Parliamentary and State Legal Advisers and team from DoT indicated that they had arrived at a consensus on Clause 7. The proposed amendments were read out by the State Law Adviser and comments were received on each clause.
The Committee agreed with the proposals made on some clauses, some clauses were flagged to be revisited by the Committee while Clause 11 should be redrafted or removed from the proposed amendments to the National Land Transport Amendment Bill [B7-2016].
Clause 11 involved the regulatory functions of municipalities. The proposed amendments allowed municipalities to give notice, in a prescribed manner and following the prescribed public participation procedure, that it will no longer receive applications for licences for new services. The Committee was of the opinion that the original section in the Principal Act and clause 11 in the proposed Amendment Bill, will continue to cause havoc amongst transport operators across the country. The Committee stated that taxi operators who tried to renew their licences were often told that the route has been earmarked for Bus Rapid Transit Systems (BRT), thus creating a situation where operators have no choice but to operate illegally. To avoid this, the Committee remarked that the integrated public transport should accommodate the minibus industry as a feeder of all modes.
Although DoT indicated that clause 11 was applicable to licences only for new services, Members highlighted various instances such as those in George in 2015 where a number of Go George busses were set alight due to the non-renewal of licences. The Committee felt that the introduction of BRT systems should not impede the business of current transport operators. The Committee agreed that the proposed amendment in Clause 11 of the National Land Transport Amendment Bill [B7-2016] should either be removed or redrafted to ensure that it did not obstruct the business of current taxi operators.
The Committee agreed to revisit Clause 38 and 48 which affected metered and non-metered taxis and penalties should be put forward for parties that violated the use of metered taxis or e-hailing software application for a vehicle. The Committee will revisit the flagged clauses after the legal teams had met and reached a consensus.
The Chairperson remarked that the meeting on the National Land Transport Amendment Bill [B7-2016] had been adjourned on 20 February 2018 to allow the Parliamentary Legal Adviser, State Law Adviser and the Department of Transport (DoT) time to coordinate and agree on how Clause 7 would be worded. She invited the State Law Adviser to take the Committee through what had been agreed.
State Law Adviser on proposed amendments
Ms Bongiwe Lufuno said that after the disagreement on 20 February 2018 she, the Parliamentary Legal Adviser and DoT had agreed on amendments to Clause 7. The team had agreed on the proposed insertion into Clause 7 of the National Land Transport Amendment Bill [B7-2016] and she proceeded to read the proposed amendments to the Bill one by one.
Ms Bongiwe Lufuno stated that in Clause 1 there was a proposal to insert the definition of 'electronic hailing’ or ‘e-hailing' on page two, after line 19 after the phrase "designed or modified". It said that 'electronic hailing’ or ‘e-hailing' means hailing or pre-booking a motor vehicle operated by the holder of an operating licence or permit authorising a public transport service that uses an e-hailing technology-enabled application which—(a) enables the hailing or pre-booking of a vehicle electronically; (b) has the facility to estimate fares and electronically communicate the estimate to passengers in advance; (c) communicates the final fare to passengers at the conclusion of the trip; (d) provides the prescribed details of the driver of the vehicle to the passenger or passengers, and (e) complies with any relevant regulations made under section 8(1)(f)(c) or 66(4)(c)(a);". Also, on page 3, line 13, the word "have" was omitted and substituted with "and may or may not have a", while, on page 3, from line 13, the phrase "if road based" was omitted. On page 3, in line 35 the phrase "or non-motorised" was inserted after the word "motorised.
Mr C Hunsinger (DA) suggested that on 1(c) and (d) the word ‘’electronically’’ should be inserted.
The Committee agreed.
The Chairperson asked if the word ‘’electronically’’ could be inserted in 1(e) as well.
Ms Lufuno said that the word ‘’electronically’’ could not be inserted in 1(e).
The Committee agreed.
In Clause 3, on page four, after line 16, paragraph (fC) which read ‘standards or requirements for electronic hailing applications or similar technology used for any public transport services, including, but not limited to, information that must be supplied to passengers, measures to ensure the accuracy of such information and measures for the protection of passengers using such services;’ was inserted. Also on page four, in line 27, the phrase ‘requirements and time frames’ was omitted and substituted with ‘guidelines and desired outcomes’.
The Committee agreed to the proposed amendments.
In Clause 5, on page four, in line 41, after "amended" a "—", was inserted, on page four, from line 41 subsection (one) after paragraph (e) of the following paragraph: was omitted, and substituted with (a) by the insertion in subsection (one) after paragraph (e) of the following paragraph:’ on page four, after line 45, to insert the following: (b) by the substitution in subsection (one) for paragraph (f) of the following paragraph, ‘(f) the composition, powers and duties of provincial Regulatory Entities, and’; and (c) by the addition of the following subsection: ‘(5) Before making any regulations contemplated in subsection (1), the Member of Executive Council (MEC) must publish a draft of such regulations for public comment in the relevant provincial gazette, and must consider any comments received in response to such publication.’.
Mr Hunsinger asked for the linkage between paragraph (b) and (c) because alignments needed to exist between provincial procedures and Ministerial procedures. He suggested that a provision could be made which allows ideas at the provincial level to be considered by the Minister.
Mr L Ramatlakane (ANC) asked if Mr Hunsinger was suggesting that a clause that defined how the Minister defines regulation could be inserted. He said that the proposal was not however appropriate under Clause 5.
The Chairperson said she understood that Mr Hunsinger was trying to say – that there should be collaborations between the MEC and the Minister but it could not be inserted under Clause 5. She asked the State Law Adviser for guidance.
Mr T Mpanza (ANC) supported Mr Ramatlakane’s position because legislation already appointed certain powers to provinces.
Mr Hunsinger said that provinces were allowed some powers but it would be subject to the Minister’s approval hence this did not allow province to make choices.
Mr M Sibande (ANC) said that South Africa was not a unilateral state and he expressed concerns that the proposal by Mr Hunsinger would give MECs more powers than the Minister.
The State Law Adviser asked Mr Hunsinger to consider the proposed amendment based on the context of other legislation which made the current proposed amendment well drafted.
The Chairperson agreed with the proposed amendment as read on the A List by the State Law Adviser.
The State Law Adviser remarked that the previous meeting had been adjourned because the DoT could not agree with the Law Advisers on 20 February 2018 The proposed amendment on page 6, after line 4, was the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (i). The subsections were;“(1A)(a) A municipality may, in writing, apply to the Minister for exemption from the proviso in subparagraph (xxvi) of subsection (1)(c), and must furnish the Minister with reasons for such application, (b) in order to enable the Minister to make a decision on such an application, the Minister may call for further information from such municipality and (c) The Minister may, after considering the application, in writing, refuse to grant exemption or grant exemption, subject to such conditions as he or she may deem fit. The State Law Adviser remarked that in paragraph (c) a time frame needed to be set. Also, (d) If any such condition is not complied with, the Minister may, in writing, withdraw the exemption concerned or determine new conditions and (e) The Minister may, from time to time, review any exemption granted or condition determined in terms of this subsection, and if he or she deems it necessary, withdraw such exemption or delete or amend such condition.”. On page six, in line 26, after “(eight)”, to insert “(a)”,on page six, in line 33, to omit “to”, and to substitute “and must”. On page six, in line 35, after contracts”, to insert “and where appropriate the Minister must intervene or issue a directive to the province or municipality under section 5(6)” and on page six, after line 36, to insert the paragraph “(b) The proviso to paragraph (a) does not apply to municipalities that have been exempted in terms of subsection (1A).” In addition, on page six, line 48, to omit “and”, and to substitute with a ‘comma’, on page six, in line 48, to omit ‘comma’ and to substitute “and (8)”.and on page six, in line 61, after “but”, to insert “are.
Mr Ramatlakane said Clause 7 had stopped the Committee from continuing with its agenda on 20 February 2018. He observed that at the end of a contract, municipalities must apply for exemption from the Minister. He asked what could happen if the Minister did not approve the exemption.
The State Law Adviser explained the process of applying to the Minister for exemption. as stated in paragraph (a) and said if the Minister did not approve, then the Minister would ask for more information as seen in paragraph(c).
Mr Ramatlakane asked for the effect of paragraph (b) if the Minister did not approve the exemption application.
The Chairperson remarked that the Minister would ask for more information.
Mr Ramatlakane said that after the municipality had submitted more information and the Minister did not approve it, what would be the fate of the municipality?
The Chairperson remarked that the municipality must comply with the decision of the Minister.
Ms Noluthando Mpikashe, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, explained the process as captured by paragraph (a), (b), (c).
Ms N Nolutshungu (EFF) stated that each municipality had an Integrated Public Transport Network (IPTN) plan and the Minister had to influence the IPTN at all times.
Ms S Xego (ANC) asked if there were no further time frames for the Minister to approve the exemption.
The Chairperson said that the Law Advisers were proposing to insert a time frame in paragraph (c) in which the Minister had to complete the process.
The Parliamentary Legal Adviser stated that paragraph (c) would read ‘the Minister may within a period of not more than 60 days consider the application, in writing, refuse to grant exemption or grant exemption, subject to such conditions as he or she may deem fit.
The Chairperson asked Ms Xego if she supported the insertion.
Ms Xego accepted.
Mr Ramatlakane asked the State Law Adviser to clarify the applicability of paragraph (b).
The State Law Adviser explained that paragraph (b) was clear and the effect was if the Minister received an application and the reasons given were not enough, the Minister may require more specific information to make an informed decision.
Mr G Radebe (ANC) said that Mr Ramatlakane was referring to 5(b) which was on page six line 36 after 8(a) which said municipalities did not have to comply if they had been exempted.
The State Law Adviser explained.
Mr Ramatlakane said that he understood the explanation.
The Committee agreed to the proposed amendments in Clause 7.
New Clause (8)
The State Law Adviser proposed a new clause that amended section 12 of Act 5 of 2000. Paragraph (a) read by the substitution for subsection (i) of the following subsection to be captured as "(1) A province may pass legislation or enter into an agreement with one or more municipalities in the province to provide for the joint exercise or performance of their respective powers and functions contemplated in this Act and may establish a provincial entity or similar body in this regard, subject to the Constitution and this section."; and (b) by the addition of the following subsections: Proposed additions also included "(four) A provincial entity contemplated in subsection (i) must at least be responsible for—(a) the functions as set out in section 11(1)(b)(ii), (iii), (iv), (vi) and (vii) and 11(1)(c) (vi), (ix), (xi), (xii), (xix), (xx), (xxii) and (xxvii); (b) the promotion and support of non-motorised transport, and (c) any other function which may be agreed upon by the province and the municipalities who are members of the provincial entity. Also (five) a provincial entity contemplated in subsection (1) may perform its functions in a municipality outside of or adjacent to the province, in agreement with the relevant municipalities and the other relevant province or provinces, (six) the agreement contemplated in subsection (1) must provide for governance, institutional mechanisms and funding for the functioning of the provincial entity and (7) the MEC must publish the agreement contemplated in subsection (1) and any subsequent amendments thereof in the relevant provincial gazette."
Mr M Sibande (ANC) asked the legal team to assist the Committee because the State Law Adviser was addressing regulations earlier but had moved to legislations. He noted that it seemed as if the Bill was empowering the province more than the Minister as captured by New Clause 8(b).
Mr Mpanza read New Clause 8(b).
Mr Sibande asked the legal team to give clarity on why the province was given more power than the Minister.
The Chairperson reminded Mr Sibande that the State Law Adviser had the power to pass legislations.
The State Law Adviser explained that in law the provinces were empowered to have certain functions.
The Chairperson said that the proposal was concurrent with legislation on intergovernmental relations as captured in the Constitution.
Mr Ramatlakane said that the State Law Adviser had an enabling mechanism it uses to pass legislations.
The Committee agreed to New Clause 8(b).
Clause 9 involved the functions of a provincial entity and the following insertion was proposed on page 7, after line 37, section "(4) Where a provincial entity is established as contemplated in section 12(1), it must perform the functions of the intermodal planning committee contemplated in this section for the municipalities which are members of the entity, including the functions set out in section 11(1)(c)(xix) for those municipalities.".
The Committee agreed to Clause 9.
Clause 11 proposed the omission of "and", on page eight, in line two and the substitution of the following-‘such a municipality may give notice in the prescribed manner and after undertaking the prescribed public participation procedures, that it will no longer receive applications for operating licences for new services except in accordance with invitations given by it for specified services on specified routes or in specified areas in accordance with its integrated transport plan, either for the purpose of concluding a contract or because those routes or areas are already adequately served.’; and’.
Mr Mpanza asked the legal team to find a smart way to formulate the subsection because it was cumbersome.
Mr Ramatlakane asked for the context of Clause 11.
Assistant Director General: Department of Transport, Mr Hament Patel, said that Clause 11 was originally in the Principal Act but the phrase “and after undertaking the prescribed public participation procedures’ added value to the clause and it dealt with new applications. The municipality regulating entities ensure that operating licence strategy brings all relevant stakeholders the detailed information on number of buses needed to bring during peak hours. It enables the municipality regulating entities to determine if additional capacity is needed.
The Chairperson asked Mr Patel to consider the challenges of Khayelitsha because taxi operators did not want the renewal regulations proposed.
Mr K Sithole (IFP) expressed concerns about the clause because it implied that licences would be blocked.
Mr Ramatlakane said that the response of DoT was less than satisfactory because permits were expected to be renewable. When permits were no longer renewable the taxis become illegal mini bus operators because Bus Rapid Transit operators have been assigned the routes. The proposed Clause 11 did not give taxi operators any alternatives. Members do not see any value in the proposed Clause 11 and it is therefore declared unacceptable because it makes taxis become illegal mini bus operators. He suggested that the proposed Clause 11 needed to be redrafted.
The State Law Adviser said that the concerns of Members were noted but that subsection 3 was a part of the Principal Act while Clause 11 only proposed an insertion. The legislation could however be redrafted by Parliament.
Mr Patel said that DoT would jointly work with the Legal Advisers on it. However, the proposed Clause 11 did not affect the existing taxi operators but affected only future taxi operators.
Mr Ramatlakane stated that it was not true. When an identity document expired, it could be renewed. However, when permits expired, applications for renewal were not approved. This had caused strikes and havoc amongst transport operators across the country because mini bus operators have been challenged. The proposed Clause 11 would lead to more havoc. The Committee must look at how it should be redrafted.
The Chairperson said that the section in both the Principal Act of 2009 and the proposed Amendment Bill, will continue to cause havoc amongst transport operators across the country. She advised Mr Patel to look at how the amendment affected taxis operators. Clause 11 needs to be redrafted to ensure that it assisted mini bus operators that wanted to renew permits.
Mr Sibande said that the renewal process had affected many taxi operators who have been replaced by bus operators.
Mr Mpanza said that when such clauses are formulated, they must have an alternative.
The Chairperson stated that the Law Advisers and DoT needed to have a joint discussion and agree on the best way forward.
The State Law Adviser explained that the proposed Clause 11 affected only new taxi operators but did not affect old taxi operators. However, she noted the concerns of Members that when taxi operators re-applied for licence permits, they are not renewed because the route has been given to bus rapid operators.
The Chairperson cited examples where Hout Bay taxi operator licences were not renewed because MyCiti bus operators who were now operating in the area. The same occurred with Atlantis bus operators. The Committee is saying that the legislation should not empower IPTN to remove taxi operators from their routes because the situation could cause havoc. She encouraged Members to keep in mind that the legislation affects not only municipalities, but also provincial transport hubs. The introduction of BRT systems should not impede the business of current transport operators.
Ms Maletlhogonolo Padziri, Director Legislature, stated that DoT noted the concern of the Committee and it would redraft the legislation and provide alternatives for old taxi operators.
The Chairperson resolved that Clause 11 be put on hold until the State Law Adviser and DOT had redrafted the clause and Members agreed.
A proposal was made to omit Clause 13(7) which dealt with how the National Public Transport Regulator could issue directives to entities that did not fulfil its obligations. The section read as follows ‘the National Public Transport Regulator may issue a directive to a provincial Regulatory Entity, municipal Regulatory Entity or planning authority which has not fulfilled or is not fulfilling its obligations under this Act, describing the extent of the failure to fulfil its obligations and stating any steps required to meet those obligations, and that entity or authority must comply with such a directive, or as an alternative the National Public Transport Regulator may request the Minister to issue such a directive under section 5(6).
Mr G Radebe (ANC) asked the DoT to state why it had to be omitted.
Mr Patel replied that the function was already carried out by the Minister of Transport and would be duplication.
The Chairperson asked DoT where the clause that stated the same function for the Minister was captured.
Mr Patel replied that the function was captured in section 6 of the Principal Act.
Mr Mpanza asked the DoT to state the intention of removing this.
Mr Ramatlakane asked how an administrative duplication affected the Minister’s functions.
Mr Patel replied that because the National Public Transport Regulator Office was under the Minister, the Office could make a request to the Minister.
Mr Ramatlakane stated that if ‘directives’ was a stronger term in the clause then a different term could be used. Also if entities were ascribed functions there must be reasons. He asked the DoT to consider removing a part rather than all of it.
Ms Phadziri said that the clause was in the Principal Act but through reviews the DoT found the Minister already had powers to issue directives.
Mr Mpanza stated that the clause should either be kept or removed because it has alternatives when compared with the Principal Act.
The State Law Adviser said that the clause was a policy issue and the DoT needed to make a response.
Mr Patel said that DoT had noted the concerns and agreed with the Committee to keep it in the Bill.
Mr M De Freitas (DA) proposed that it be retained because it had intended consequences that did not in any way harm the Bill.
Mr Ramatlakane supported Mr De Freitas’ proposal but stated that the only term he did not agree with was ‘directives’. He suggested that the legal teams found a less weighty word to replace it.
The Chairperson resolved that clause 13(7) be retained with the amendment suggested by Mr Ramatlakane.
The proposal was made to omit clause 18.
Mr Sithole asked why clause 18 had to be omitted.
The State Law Adviser said that clause 18(c) was being amended based on inputs from DoT. However it should be read in conjunction the Principal Act.
Mr Patel read out the functions of the MEC as captured in the Principal Act. He informed the Committee that the municipality notified DoT about the duplication and DoT was not against the removal of the clause.
Mr Mpanza asked if the removal of the clause depended on the Committee’s input or DoT’s.
Mr Ramatlakane observed that when the clause was read in conjunction with the Principal Act it made sense to remove the clause.
The Committee agreed to the remove of the clause.
In page ten line 37, the phrase ‘and after undertaking other prescribed public participation procedures’ was proposed to be inserted after ‘operators.’ Similarly, in page ten, line 47, the phrase ‘the regulatory entity must on request of the planning authority,’ was proposed to be inserted after ‘appropriate’.
Mr Ramatlakane asked DoT to explain the meaning of ‘and after undertaking other prescribed public participation procedures’
Mr Patel replied that the clause was added when the Bill was undergoing NEDLAC participation. It gives an idea of how public participation process should be done.
Ms Phadziri said that the phrase meant that in the regulations, the Minister would indicate how the particular process could be done.
Mr Ramatlakane said that the clause should have a qualifier.
The State Law Adviser said that ‘prescribed’ meant prescribed by regulations and it should be read in context with the Principal Act.
The Chairperson asked if Members agreed with the proposal.
Mr Ramatlakane agreed with the proposal.
Mr Sithole said that ‘may’ or ‘must’ needed to be inserted in the clause.
The State Law Adviser said that ‘must’ needed to be inserted.
The Chairperson asked if Members agreed with the proposal
Mr Ramatlakane said that it had to be ‘must’ because it referred to a regulatory authority.
The Chairperson observed that all Members agreed.
In page 12 line 11, a proposal was made to omit the word ‘substantive’ and to substitute with the word ‘material’.
Mr De Freitas asked DoT to explain the meaning of both words.
Mr Neville Dingle, DOT consultant, stated that ‘substantive ‘related to what the Minister could make while ‘material’ related to legislation.
The State Law Adviser agreed with the explanation.
Mr De Freitas asked DoT to explain the difference between the two words.
The Chairperson said that Mr De Freitas was trying to get the dictionary meaning to ensure that it may be conceptualised.
Mr Ramatlakane said that the State Law Adviser understood what DoT was saying. He remarked that in lay man’s language material talks about money.
Adv Nel, Committee researcher, stated that ‘substantive’ related to evidence while ‘material’ was the core of the matter.
The Chairperson observed that all Members agreed.
A proposal was made to remove the phrase calculated as [seven] five years from the date of commencement of [this Act] the National Land Transport Amendment”, and to substitute [calculated as seven years from the date of commencement of this Act, it will lapse on that date] in clause 26(1).
The State Law Adviser explained that the intention was to remove the period and the effect is that the period would be determined by the Minister.
Mr Radebe said that he wanted to confirm if there was a specific period.
Mr Ramatlakane said that he did not agree to the proposal because if it was a law, it should have a timeframe which must be set. The Bill should remain with a period of seven years. He asked DoT to explain why the time frame should be taken away.
Mr Sibande said that if Members did not put in a timeframe it would result in a setback.
Mr Patel stated that clause 26(1) was in relation to clause 47 of the Principal Act and dealt with indefinite permits or operating licences. He reported that there had been two court cases. Operators did not re-apply within the two years of the expiry of licence. Also regulators did not have enough capability to deal with the matter.
Mr Dingle stated that the Minister could make a decision hence there was no need for time frame in the clause.
Mr Radebe asked DoT to state how long it took to issue a permit because applying two years before expiry might not be easy for the operator. Hence, the time frame in the legislation would serve as checks.
Mr Ramatlakane observed that the DoT had come across administrative problems because the lack of time frame in the legislation would put the Minister under pressure.
The State Law Adviser clarified that in the Principal Act the date was calculated as seven years and expired in 2016. Hence an amendment of the clause was needed. The proposed amendment in the A list merely leaves the function to the Minister’s prerogative.
The Chairperson asked Members to consider the proposal.
Mr Ramatlakane said that the Committee proposed a time frame.
The Chairperson agreed with the seven years proposed by Members.
The State Law Adviser asked if the Committee was extending the period further so if the timeframe commences in 2018 it would expire in 2023 because the original expiry date was 2016.
Mr Ramatlakane observed that new dimensions had been added and asked for clarity on the contracts.
Mr Dingle said that DoT refers to permits and not contracts and the issuance of permits was not illegal.
Mr Patel replied that clause 26(1) pertained to clause 47(1) and 47(1) because DoT had given a grace period of seven years. Operators filed applications when licences were about to expire hence the clause is an empowering legislation. This means that operators need to re-apply within a time limit and it brings the issue of indefinite permits to an end. The abnormality is that some operators have indefinite permits while some have regulated permits.
Mr Ramatlakane proposed that Members should agree to a time frame of seven years after the Bill is accepted.
Adv Nel gave a practical application of the Bill and stated that the question was how long the regulator could keep on extending the Bill. She expressed concerns on what would happen when the extension expired.
The Parliamentary Legal Adviser stated that such permits would lapse after the date on the Bill.
The State Law Adviser said that the Committee had to consider the proposal because the DoT was coming up with practical applications. She asked Members to clarify if the legislation would be debated again if it happened that operators re-applied close to expiration. Hence, it was better for the challenge to be addressed through legislation.
Mr Ramatlakane asked for the logic in the Minister resolving this situation if the operators re-applied at the last minute. Operators needed to be sensitised, if not, they could resist. He asked how the Minister would determine the appropriate date for renewal timeframes if it was not stipulated. He said that it would be better to stick to seven years.
The Chairperson asked DoT to consider sending an SMS to operators to apply for renewal.
Mr Hunsinger stated that he was in favour of timeframes but proposed longer years because of the repayment terms on taxis.
The Chairperson asked Members to consider the proposal.
Mr Ramatlakane stated that the repayment term was accommodated within the seven years.
The Parliamentary Legal Adviser stated if the Committee was rejecting the proposed amendment, the Committee should allow the legal team to redraft the clause to accommodate the seven years. Therefore, after seven years the permit would lapse
The Chairperson agreed with the Parliamentary Legal Adviser’s proposal.
A new clause was proposed to amend section 50 of Act but DoT informed them that the new clause was no longer needed.
Clause 31 proposed insertion of ’ —‘ on page 14, line 43, after the word ‘amended’, Also, to omit ‘by the substitution for subsection (two) of the following subsection’, and to substitute: (a) by the substitution for subsection (2) of the following subsection:’ A proposal to insert the following on page 14, after line 46, (b) by the substitution in subsection (5) for paragraph (e) of the following paragraph which reads "(e) specify the vehicle or [exact type] category of vehicle to be used for providing the services concerned; and".
The proposal was accepted.
clause 38 proposed insertion of the following on page 16, after line 15, in one (a) by the substitution in subsection (one) for the words preceding paragraph (a) of the following words ’In the case of a metered taxi service or e-hailing service –“’ and (b) by the deletion of paragraph (b) of subsection (one); In two on page 16 line 31 delete ‘electronicc’ and substitute ‘electronic’ while in three on page 16, after line 44, to insert the following in paragraph ‘(7) Where a person conducts a business providing an e-hailing software application, that person−(a) may not permit an operator to use that application for a vehicle for which the operator does not hold a valid operating licence or permit for the vehicle, or whose operating licence or permit has lapsed or been cancelled, and (b) must disconnect the e-hailing application forthwith and keep it disconnected until a valid operating licence has been obtained for the vehicle. Also in clause (eight) a person who fails to comply with subsection (seven) commits an offence’.
Mr Ramatlakane said Members’ minds needed to be applied to clause 38 to consider how the clause affected metered and non-metered taxis.
Mr Sibande said that it has been alleged that some operators were using electronic hailing services while the operators do not have permits. He proposed that a paragraph which punished the alleged offenders needed to be introduced in the Bill.
The Chairperson agreed to revisit clause 38.
A new clause 48 was proposed to amend section 90. Clause 48(a) read ‘by the insertion in subsection (one) of the following paragraphs after paragraph (l): lA) if the person conducts a business providing or facilitating a metered taxi service or provides an e-hailing software application for a vehicle or allows or facilitates metered taxi or e-hailing services for that vehicle, where the operator of the vehicle does not hold a valid operating licence or permit for the vehicle, in contravention of section 66(7)’. Also (lB) if the person provides an e-hailing software application and permits an operator to use that application for a vehicle for which the operator does not hold a valid operating licence or permit, or where the operating licence or permit for the vehicle has lapsed or been cancelled, without disconnecting the e-hailing application and keeping it disconnected until a valid operating licence has been obtained for the vehicle, in contravention of section 66(eight)’. Also clause 48 (b) was proposed it reads ‘by substituting the following in subsection (two) for paragraph (a)of the following paragraph:’(a) paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e), (lA), (lB) or (o) of subsection (one), a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding R100 000, may be imposed’.
Mr Ramatlakane noted that clause 48 was linked with clause 38 that the Committee had agreed to revisit hence the Committee should address this clause in its subsequent meetings.
The Committee agreed.
The State Law Adviser said that translational provisions protected existing clauses from the application of 11 exemptions. This was captured in clause 51 which read ‘all the existing contracts concluded in terms of section 11(1)(c)(xxvi) immediately prior to the commencement of the amendments to that subsection by the National Land Transport Amendment Act, 2018, remain valid until they were cancelled or lapsed’.
Mr Ramatlakane agreed to the proposal.
The Chairperson asked Members if they agreed with the translational provisions.
Mr Ramatlakane agreed.
Mr Radebe and Mr Mpanza also agreed.
The Chairperson observed that Members had agreed.
The State Law Adviser said that some amendments were dealt with so that they would be shifted to the schedules
The State Law Adviser said that a new clause 53 was proposed to provide for different amendment dates for the provisions in the Bill.
The schedules set out the Acts that are being amended and it has the purpose of been a consequential amendment to the Principal Act.
The Chairperson noted that Members agreed to the schedule. She said that several issues would be revisited by the Committee after the legal team had met.
The meeting was adjourned.
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.