Home Loan & Mortgage Disclosure Bill; SARCC Financial Arrangements Bill: voting

Meeting report

PUBLIC SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE
7 November 2000
SOUTH AFRICAN RAIL COMMUTER CORPORATION LIMITED FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS BILL; HOME LOAN AND MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE BILL: VOTING

Relevant documents:
Home Loan and Mortgage Disclosure Bill [B 53B - 2000]
South African Rail Commuter Corporation Limited Financial Arrangements Bill [B 64 - 2000]

SUMMARY
The two Bills were passed unanimously without amendments with the NNP noting its objection only to Clause 3 of the Home Loan and Mortgage Disclosure Bill.

MINUTES
South African Rail Commuter Corporation Limited Financial Arrangements Bill
The Chairperson put the motion of desirability before the Committee, and it was agreed to.

All clauses were agreed to. The report of the Committee was agreed to and the Chairperson signed it.

Home Loan and Mortgage Disclosure Bill
The Chairperson asked members if they would like to propose any amendments on the Bill after the previous day's discussion.

Mr Maloyi (ANC, North-West) noted that the Bill before the Committee the previous day was not the version as amended by the Portfolio Committee. The amended version was before them now. The Chairperson said the Department of Housing should clarify the amendments.

The Department said the amendments agreed to by the Portfolio Committee were minor and are as follows:
· In clauses 2, 11, and 14, the word "period" replaces "year".
· In clause 5(1)(d) after the word "communities", the following is inserted: "and such financial institutions in accordance with such information". The Portfolio Committee wanted the Bill to have more teeth by introducing the rating of banks.
· In clause 8 to omit subclause (2)(e) and replace it with a new (e) that reads:
"he or she is convicted of-
(i) an offence involving dishonesty or corruption; or
(ii) any other offence and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine;" The purpose is to highlight that offences which "include" dishonesty and corruption disqualifies a person from being a member of the Office of Disclosure.
· In clause 8(4) a typing error referred to section 7. This should in fact be a reference to section 6.
· In clause 11(1) after "Minister" to omit the words "after consultation with the Director-General of Housing". This is because in terms of the new way in which provinces are run the Minister is the new executive authority and the Director-General does not have to fit in.
· Under the heading "Secretariat" in clause 11, a new subclause (3) :
"The Director-General of Housing is the accounting officer for the Office and must cause the installation of the necessary financial controls and management measures by the Office to ensure full accountability for expenses incurred by the Office."
· The existing clause 11(3) becomes subclause (4). The reason for the amendment is that the Portfolio Committee wanted accountability to be clear.
· In clause 14(2) after "may not exceed one year" to omit the words "but may be renewed by the Minister upon submission of evidence that any of the circumstances contemplated in subsection (1) still applies to the financial institution, or category of financial institutions.
· Under the Preamble, a new amendment was inserted at the instance of the Portfolio Committee to say:
"AND WHEREAS it is not the intention of this Act to promote, in any way, unsound lending practices among financial institutions in their business of providing home loans;"

Mr Suka (ANC, Eastern Cape) asked whether in clause 15(2) the Committee should keep the stated amount for the fine or if there are other proposals.

Mr Gideon Hoon, State Law Advisor, replied that the Constitutional Court had said that Parliament should not delegate its legislative power. Having the Minister prescribe the amount of the fine could be seen as delegating such power. One option is to say a person convicted on the offence is liable to a fine (without mentioning the amount), which would be up to the court to say how much. The other option is to stipulate the amount as it is done in the clause, and there is nothing preventing the legislators from choosing a larger amount.

Mr Mkhaliphi (ANC - Mpumalanga) said he agrees to some extent with the suggestion. He expressed concern that the initial drafters of the Bill by putting the amount had wanted to indicate the seriousness with which they view the offence in question. To remove the amount and leave it to the courts to decide, might carry the danger that this intention would not be understood. He said he would be happy with the suggestion that other avenues be explored such as providing for the amount in the regulations.

Mr Sulliman (ANC, Northern Cape) said he shares Mr Mkhaliphi's sentiments. He suggested that since the wording says "an amount not exceeding R100 000" the Committee should stick with the wording.

A member suggested that the R100 000 be the minimum amount of the fine.

The Department said some of the cases may be brought against individuals and banks may be joined as defendants. It is doubtful that the courts would be willing to impose a R100 000 fine on, for instance, a clerk who earns very little.

It was agreed that the Committee should stick to the wording currently in the Bill, namely that the fine should be an amount not exceeding R100 000.

Voting
The Chairperson put the motion of desirability before the Committee which was agreed to.

Dr Nel (NNP, Free State) noted the New National Party's objection to clause 3 of the Bill.

All the other clauses were agreed to including the preamble as amended by the Portfolio Committee. The Chairperson read the report of the Committee and proceeded to sign it after it was agreed to.

The Chairperson asked members if they would be interested in debating the Bills or whether a declaration would be sufficient. Mr Sulliman, the Whip of the ANC, said they had discussed the matter in the Multiparty Committee meeting and agreed that there should be no debate but just a statement by the Chairperson. The Committee agreed to this.

The meeting was adjourned.