DTIC Budget: Committee Report; Resolution requesting National Lotteries Commission provide beneficiary list

This premium content has been made freely available

Trade, Industry and Competition

16 July 2020
Chairperson: Mr D Nkosi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, (National Assembly) 16 July 2020
Audio: DTIC Budget: Committee Report 

16 July 2020 Media Statement: Trade and Industry Committee Orders NLC to Publish Details of all Beneficiaries
Legal Opinion
Tabled Committee Reports

The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry held a virtual meeting to finalise the Revised Budget Vote Report and a pass a resolution requesting the National Lottery Commission provide a lists of beneficiaries that had been withheld.


The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition had provided information on the progress of legislation in terms of Amendments to the Competition Act, the Gambling Act and the Liquor Act and which had been incorporated in the Revised Budget Vote Report. The report was adopted by the ANC. The ACDP abstained, citing its policy of a subsidiarity approach rather than a centralised approach to industry and the economy. The EFF rejected the report and budget plan because it was not radical; it did not speak to the crisis that the country was in; it was not an innovative approach to fighting the loss of jobs; it was not innovative in supporting industry from loss of jobs and loss of revenue. The DA and FF+ rejected the Revised Budget Vote Report.

Having determined that the National Lotteries Commission was obliged, by law, to release details of all lottery beneficiaries, the Committee discussed the key requests to be included in the letter. The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry unanimously resolved to inform the National Lotteries Commission (NLC) that it must provide the list of beneficiaries that benefited from the R150 million Covid-19 relief fund and a list of all beneficiaries that received money from the NLC during the 2018-2019 financial year and any other beneficiary lists not made public. It should include the names, the amounts that were disbursed, as well as the categories it was paid out from. The Commission was also required to publish the names of beneficiaries in its 2019/20 Annual Report, as required by the Lotteries Act (Act No. 57 of 1997).
 

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson greeted everyone. He indicated that he had been caught in traffic and would chair the meeting from his stationary vehicle.

The Committee Secretary ensured that the Committee was quorate.

DTIC Budget Vote Report
The Committee Secretary stated that he had followed up with the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition on the questions relating to the Companies Act, liquor and gambling legislation that had not been responded to previously. In response to the questions of Mr D Macpherson (DA) about various pieces of legislation, DTIC had informed the Committee that the process of drafting the Amendment to the Companies Act had been finalised and sent to Cabinet for approval, after which it would be sent to Parliament for processing, possibly in the fourth quarter of 2020/21.  The Liquor Amendment Bill was in the process of  being tabled with Cabinet for approval, after which it would be sent to Parliament for processing. The Department explained that it was dealing with a number of policy issues, in which the recent developments in the liquor industry had been taken into consideration. The Bill would possibly also be introduced in the current financial year. The Gambling Bill was being processed in the National Council of Provinces. The Department had briefed the Select Committee and the Bill was in the final stages of consideration. The questions and answers had been incorporated in the Report.

The Chairperson asked if there were any comments in response to the update to the Report.

Ms Y Yako (EFF) asked if the adoption of the Report was yet in process. She asked that she be noted when the adoption was considered.

The Chairperson moved to the conclusions and recommendations in the Report. No additional conclusions or recommendations had been received from Members the previous day. He asked for comments.

Mr W Thring (ACDP) stated that he had a challenge with paragraph 5.6: “Preserving and protecting the industrial base was of paramount importance to the Committee. Therefore the Committee supported a centralised approach to the development of SEZs (Special Economic Zones).” He could not support that point because of his party’s policy of a subsidiarity approach rather than a centralised approach.

The Chairperson accepted Mr Thring’s position. He asked if the Committee was ready for the  adoption Revised Budget Vote Report.

The Committee Secretary indicated that the process required a mover and a seconder of the adoption of the Report.

Ms J Hermans (ANC) moved that the Revised Budget Vote Report be adopted. Ms R Moatshe (ANC) seconded the adoption of the Report.

Ms Yako stated that the EFF totally rejected the Report. The Report and budget plan was not radical; it did not speak to the crisis that the country was in; it was not an innovative approach to fighting the loss of jobs; it was not an innovative to supporting industry from loss of jobs and loss of revenue, especially as the economy was declining across the board even as they spoke. While there still was not a state-owned company for a simple thing like personal protective equipment, it could not be said that a lot was being done to change things or to cushion the blow from what was happening. The EFF rejected the Budget Vote Report.

Mr Thring stated that the ACDP objected to conclusion 5.6 and therefore abstained in terms of the Report itself.

Mr F Mulder (FF+) had previously engaged with the Committee when the Report had been discussed. He put it on record that he had engaged with the Minister the previous Friday as had been discussed at the meeting, and the party would be engaging the Minister further but for the moment the FF+ rejected the report.

Mr W Cuthbert (DA) stated that DA voted against the Report and it should be noted as such.

The Committee Secretary stated that he assumed that the majority party voted in favour of the report, the ACDP abstained from voting, the EFF and FF+ rejected the Report and Mr Cuthbert had indicated that the DA voted against the report. He assumed that Mr Cuthbert had indicated the DA vote on behalf of Mr Macpherson.

Mr Cuthbert stated that he had voted on behalf of both himself and Mr Macpherson.

Mr Thing rose on a matter of procedure. He said that he did not know if one Member could vote on behalf of another in a Committee.

The Committee Secretary stated that a Member could not vote by proxy.

Mr Cuthbert explained that Mr D Macpherson (DA) was in the meeting but he was on an urgent call at that particular moment and Mr Cuthbert had relayed the vote on his part. Usually the DA voted as a party.

Mr S Mbuyane (ANC) stated that it was a case of one man, one vote in South Africa as it was a democratic country. He voted in favour of the report.

The Committee Secretary stated that only the vote of Mr Cuthbert would be recorded, although he understood that challenge that Mr Macpherson was experiencing.

Mr D Macpherson (DA) returned to the meeting and voted against the report.

The Revised Budget Vote Report was adopted by the Committee with five votes in favour; four votes against; and one abstention.

Discussion on the National Lottery Commission
The Committee Secretary stated that on the previous day, the Committee had received the opinion of Legal Services on the National Lotteries Commission (NLC) on the obligation of the NLC to provide information on the beneficiaries of its funding. The Committee had questioned whether the 2019/20 beneficiaries should be included in the lists provided to the Committee. The secretariat had consulted with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTIC) and had been informed that the 2019/20 list would be included in the 2019/20 NLC Annual Report.

Mr Cuthbert stated that there had been some confusion around the 2019/20 list so he wished to state that as long as the information was provided in the 2019/20 NLC Annual Report, there should not be an issue. However, that information should be given to the Committee in writing.

Mr Cuthbert added that, in the DA caucus meeting that morning, Members had been informed by parliamentary officials that a parliamentary legal opinion should be provided by the Office of Constitutional and Legal Services within seven days of a request for an opinion. He wished to point that out so that, should the Committee again need a legal opinion, that should be the timeframe within which an opinion should be expected. It had been said at the caucus meeting that the time the Committee had been forced to wait was unacceptable. He would like that to be addressed.

The Chairperson asked if the Secretary would like to comment.

The Committee Secretary stated that he did not want to comment on the legal opinion. He presented the points that were to be put in a letter to the NLC requesting the Commission to submit the documents.

The NLC should submit the following within seven days of receipt of the letter:
The names of beneficiaries who had received funds from the NLC in respect of the Covid-19 pandemic as well as the amount received;
The names of the beneficiaries of the 2018/19 lotteries, as required by the Lotteries Act (Act No 57 of 1997), as well as the category under which the benefit was received and the amount received;
that the NLC publish the names of the beneficiaries in the 2019/20 Annual Report as required in law.

Mr Macpherson suggested that the word “should” be replaced by“ must” in line 1. “Should” was open to interpretation whereas “must” was instructive. When one looked at the previous Annual Report for 2018/19, the beneficiaries had been omitted. Therefore, the AR that had been tabled in Parliament had not been compliant with the law. He recommended that the 2018/19 AR be withdrawn, the list of beneficiaries be included and the AR republished and re-submitted to Parliament. The AR needed to be re-tabled in Parliament. He believed that it was a legal and procedural requirement that it be re-tabled.

The Chairperson asked if it was only 2018/19.

Mr Macpherson stated that it was only the 2018/19 AR that was not compliant with the law as the list of beneficiaries had been omitted.

Mr Cuthbert stated that this was 100% correct. The first point should be carefully worded and refer specifically to “the Relief Fund for Covid-19 of R150 million”. He seconded the proposal of the re-tabling of the 2018/19 Annual Report including the beneficiaries, as per the law.

Ms Hermans asked that the correct amount of the fund for Covid-19 should be obtained and inserted but she was happy with the wording of the point. She believed that it was called the Proactive Funding. Regarding the re-tabling of the 2018/19 AR, should the whole report be republished or just an addendum? Could the Secretary advise or obtain the advice, unless they were saying that Mr Macpherson was the Committee’s legal expert.

Mr Macpherson commented that if the Committee had listened to his advice, Members would have avoided the four months of drama that they had had.

The Committee Secretary said he could not answer the question about re-publication but he would enquire. In the interim, the Committee could ask for the 2018/19 beneficiary list within seven days and then once the information was found regarding whether the whole report should be republished and tabled, there could be a follow-up.

The Chairperson asked why, if only the list of beneficiaries was omitted, it was necessary for the entire AR to be re-published and re-submitted.

Mr Cuthbert responded to Ms Hermans’ point about the Proactive Funding. If the Committee limited itself to the Proactive Funding, it would only get the beneficiaries of R140 million and not the entire disbursement of the NLC. That provision would limit the information to be obtained. Proactive Funding was only for those that did not supply supporting documentation in advance but only provided those documents after the fact. That was not what the Committee wanted.

He explained that the Committee required the list for the Relief Fund for Covid-19 and the entire list of beneficiaries of the NLC which should include those who received proactive funding.

Mr Macpherson added that when the AR is released, all beneficiaries should be included, bit funding on application and the proactive funding. There should be no room for manoeuvre. It should be as the Committee had received up to that point.

The Chairperson asked Mr Macpherson that if he was asking for re-submission. Should he not be asking for a supplementary list instead of a re-submission of the whole report?

Ms Hermans, on a point of order, informed the Chairperson that he was asking the proposer for the information that the Committee had agreed would be obtained by the Secretary.

The Chairperson asked whether the proposed list included everything that the Committee required.

The Committee Secretary stated that it appeared that the 2017/18 list was also not published in the AR.

The Chairperson noted that was the question he had been asking and suggested that the Committee request any beneficiary lists not included in an AR.

Mr Cuthbert agreed with the Chairperson’s proposal that all outstanding beneficiary lists be required but that the letter should be drafted in an open-ended way in case anything else had been left out.

The Chairperson told the secretariat that they had sufficient information to draft the letter for his signature. The request for the relief fund was to request a more balanced view.

The Committee Secretary noted that he required a proposer and a seconder.

Mr Macpherson stated that the DA wished to propose that the Committee send a letter to the NLC as flighted on the screen. He thought that it would be a wonderful thing if the Chairperson put out a media statement for the public to be able to see what had been done.

Mr Cuthbert seconded the proposal with specific reference to the media statement as he thought that it was important that the public knew that the Committee was requesting those reports and that the decision had been taken as a Committee.

Ms Hermans stated that the ANC supported the motion.

Mr Thring agreed with the motion but believed it was necessary to be very specific and thought that it might be better to remove the amount of how much had been received in the Relief Fund if the Members did not know the exact amount of the Relief Fund. He suggested that the Secretary leave out the amount of the fund.

The Chairperson suggested that the amount would be removed.

Mr Cuthbert informed Mr Thring that the amount of R150 million was correct. He stated that he had forwarded the NLC advertisement for the Relief Fund of R150 million to the Secretary – that advertisement provided confirmation of the amount available. He suggested that a copy of the advertisement be attached to the letter.

The Chairperson noted that the details of the Relief Fund had been confirmed. As there were no further comments, the Committee agreed that the letter would be sent to NLC expanding on the summary provided by the Secretary.

Resolution
The motion to require the NLC to provide, within seven days, the list of beneficiaries that had benefited from the R150 million Covid-19 relief fund, and also a list of all beneficiaries that had received money from the NLC during the 2018-2019 financial year, including the names, the amounts that were disbursed, as well as the categories it was paid out from. It should also include all beneficiary lists that have not be made public up to now. Furthermore, the Committee requested that the NLC publish the names of beneficiaries in its 2019/20 Annual Report, as required by the Lotteries Act (Act No. 57 of 1997) was proposed by Mr Macpherson and seconded by Mr Cuthbert. The motion was adopted unanimously.

The Chairperson noted that Members did not want to discuss how the Members had engaged on issues as, in that particular issue, there had been engagement inside and outside of the Committee. In terms of the communication, it was a bit of a challenge as the Committee had not had a proper space to engage as there had been parallel discussions. He requested that in future all discussions took place within the Committee and not outside as Members of the Portfolio Committee as that made it difficult to manage the process.

Minutes
The following sets of minutes were presented by the Chairperson of the Committee, proposed and seconded by Members and all minutes were adopted with no amendments or objections:
19 May 2020; 10 June 2020; 19 June 2020; 24 June 2020 and 08 July 2020.  

Closing remarks

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their participation and the Committee staff for their work.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

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.

Share this page: