Competition Commission + ITAC 2016/17 Annual Report

NCOP Economic and Business Development

28 November 2017
Chairperson: Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The International Trade Administration Commission presented its Annual Report for 2016/17.

The core function of the Commission was tariff investigations, trade remedies and import & export control.
The Committee was provided with an overview of the entity’s key strategic objectives, performance areas and services. Comprehensive detail was provided on tariff investigations, tariff remedies and on import & export control. The briefing continued with achievements against targets.  

On Tariff Investigations, for customs tariff reductions the target for 2016/17 to have 80% of the final decisions made within six months had been met. However, on customs tariff increases the target of 80% of the final decisions to be made within six months had not been met, with actual achievement only sitting at 50%.

On Trade Remedies, for anti-dumping investigations the target for 2016/17 was to have 80% of preliminary determinations to be within six months of initiation as well as to have 80% of final determinations within ten months of initiation. Actual performance was that there were no preliminary determinations or final determinations as well as no new investigations being instituted during the period.

Regarding Import & Export, the target for import control permits of 16 000 was surpassed with actual performance sitting at 18 660. On export control permits the target of 12 000 was also surpassed with the actual figure being 12 828.

The entity obtained an unqualified audit opinion from the Office of the Auditor General of SA for 2016/17.

On the financial position total revenue amounted to R92.7m with total expenditure amounting to R104.2m. There was thus a deficit of R11.5m.

Members were pleased with the clean audit report obtained by the International Trade Administration Commission. Members asked where the work of the Commission overlapped with the work of the Department of Trade and Industry when it came to tariffs. The entity was asked why it at the time had not taken action when cheap Chinese steel was being dumped in SA during the construction of power plants by Eskom. The concern was that job losses had taken place in the steel sector because of the imports. The same applied to the dumping of poultry into SA. The local poultry industry was taking strain. Jobs in the poultry industry needed to be saved. Was it the responsibility of the International Trade Administration Commission or of the Department of Trade and Industries to have taken action? Who should be taking lead?

Members asked why the Department of Trade and Industries had increased the Commission’s rental by 56%. The entity was already in a deficit, why was that?

Members asked why the Commission had employed contract workers when it was already under financial strain. Was it a necessary expense? The Annual Report mentioned the entity having to pay legal fees. What was its litigation protocol? Members were interested in the Commission’s efforts on empowerment. The entity was asked how many women were in executive positions. Members asked whether fines were imposed when investigations were completed. What was done with the funds collected from fines?

Members raised concern that agricultural crops planted in SA were moving towards those that were valuable. It was about maximising profits. This was at the expense of cash crops which contributed towards the food basket of SA. The result was that SA had to import agricultural products that it needed. Had the Commission identified this as a problem? Members considered it to be a socio-economic discrepancy. What was being done about it? The matter needed to be brought to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industries if it already had not been done. Members suggested that the entity consider the Moroccan model over the issue and perhaps SA could learn something. The Chairperson asked for clarity over the matter of legal fees having been referred to National Treasury. Had the legal fees issue affected the audit outcome of the Commission? The entity was also asked to explain the irregular expenditures mentioned in the Annual Report. Members pointed out that SA struggled with trade balances and low commodity prices also did not help things. Members said that there needed to be a diversification of exports. As things stood the Gross Domestic Product debt was growing. The Commission was asked whether the Committee could in any way provide legislative framework assistance. Members were concerned that perhaps internal controls at the entity were lacking. The entity was asked what were its efforts on combating copper theft? Did the Commission work with the SA Police Service? The Committee asked that the International Trade Administration Commission provide it with its action plan which intended to address the findings of the AGSA.

The Competition Commission presented its Annual Report for 2016/17. The Commission was tasked with regulating competition in the market. It investigated complaints, assessed mergers, evaluated exemption applications and undertook market enquiries and advocacy. Some highlights were that the Commission concluded a far-reaching settlement with ArcelorMittal South Africa. Detail was also provided on the merger between Anheuser-Busch InBev and SABMiller. The Commission in addition had prevented an anti-competitive merger between Imerys South Africa and Andulusite Resources. The briefing continued with an overview of performance.

In terms of Merger Regulation, all six targets had been met. A total of 48 403 jobs had been saved by the Commission’s intervention. Fifteen mergers had been approved with public interest conditions.

On Competition Enforcement, six of the seven targets were met. The Commission had initiated three investigations in priority sectors. The Commission also initiated investigations against various schools and uniform suppliers for excessive pricing.

On Compliance & Litigation, five of the six targets were met. The Commission published public interest guidelines on 8 June 2016, issued 23 advisory opinions, oversaw 98 cases at litigation stage and entered into 21 settlements with parties.

Regarding Strategic Collaboration & Advocacy, nine of the ten targets were met. The Commission had made submissions on five government policies, concluded bilateral and Memorandums of Understanding with Southern African Development Community and Brazil, Russia, India, China and SA Bloc partners.

In terms of Building a High-Performance Agency, two out of five targets were met. The Commission completed the re-design of its organisational structure, and also filled key leadership vacancies.

On financials, the Commission’s total revenue decreased by R6m from R295m to R289m. Total expenditure increased by R71m from R296m to R367m. The Commission thus incurred a deficit of R78m compared to the previous year’s R1.2m. The Commission managed to secure a clean audit finding.

The Competition Commission was asked whether government’s continuous bailouts of SAA were not unfair on emerging airlines. Had the Commission looked into the issue? Members also asked whether the renewal of Vodacom’s contract was not unfair on other cell phone networks given Vodacom’s dominance in the sector already. The Commission was asked why it had declined Standard Bank’s request to release details on investigations into currency manipulation which had emanated from 2015. Members asked why the expenditure of the Commission had increased by 24%. Members also asked how the Commission conducted investigations. Did the Commission use its own investigators or was a multi-disciplinary approach used?
 In as much as Members felt that the Commission was one of the most under-rated Commissions Members were nevertheless critical about the penalties imposed by the Commission. Members felt that the penalties imposed were not significant and did not enforce consequence management; and felt that on the Airlink Airways issue affordability needed to be a consideration.  Concern was raised over the SABMiller takeover possibly having job loss implications. The Commission was asked why it referred to cartel competition as collusion. Members felt that the issue of the high prices of school uniforms and the exclusive supply thereof needed to be looked into. Given that foreign investors were keen to invest in SA the ITAC was asked whether it had a policy on property ownership and on worker ownership.

Minutes dated 31 October 2017, 7 and 14 November 2017 were adopted unamended.
 

Meeting report

Briefing by the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) on its Annual Report 2016/17
The delegation comprised of Mr Siyabulela Tsengiwe, Chief Commissioner; Mr Phillip Semela, General Manager: Corporate Services; and Ms Carina Janse van Vuuren Senior Manager. Mr Tsengiwe undertook the briefing.
The core function of the ITAC was tariff investigations, trade remedies and import and export control. The Committee was provided with an overview of the ITAC’s key strategic objectives, performance areas and services. Comprehensive detail was provided on tariff investigations, tariff remedies and on import & export control. The briefing continued with achievements against targets.  

Tariff Investigations
On customs tariff reductions the target for 2016/17 to have 80% of the final decisions made within six months was met. However, on customs tariff increases the target of 80% of the final decisions to be made within six months had not been met, with actual achievement only sitting at 50%. The target was also not met on custom tariff rebates with actual performance being 70% of final decisions being made within six months even though the target was set at 80%.

Trade Remedies
On anti-dumping investigations the targets for 2016/17 was to have 80% of preliminary determinations to be within six months of initiation as well as to have 80% of final determinations within ten months of initiation. Actual performance was that there were no preliminary determinations or final determinations as well as no new investigations being instituted during the period. On safeguard applications the target was to have 80% of properly documented applications initiated within six months. Actual performance was that 100% of preliminary determinations were done within six months and no final determinations were made.

Import & Export
The target for import control permits of 16 000 was surpassed with actual performance sitting at 18 660. On export control permits the target of 12 000 was also surpassed with the actual figure being 12 828. On inspections and investigations, the target was to schedule 500, actual achievement sat at 505. The target for unscheduled investigations and inspections was 500, actual unscheduled inspections and investigations were 2 866. A target had been set for 20 investigations with actual performance only being 13.

Besides speaking on performance, the briefing also shed light on controls for scrap metal as well as updates on support for the steel and poultry sectors.

The ITAC obtained an unqualified audit opinion from the Office of the Auditor General of SA (AGSA) for 2016/17. The ITAC did not incur irregular expenditure or fruitless and wasteful expenditure for 2016/17.
On the ITAC’s financial position its total revenue amounted to R92.7m with total expenditure amounting to R104.2m. There was thus a deficit of R11.5m. The ITAC had via the Department of Economic Development put in a request for additional funds from National Treasury.

Discussion
Mr W Faber (DA, Northern Cape) said the Committee was informed by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) that it had raised import tariffs on imported Chinese steel. He asked where the work of the ITAC and the DTI overlapped when it came to tariffs. He pointed out that Highveld Steel had been awarded the contract to supply the steel for railway tracks. Given the work of ITAC he asked why it had not taken action when the Chinese had dumped their steel in SA when power plants were built by Eskom. Why had the ITAC not stepped in at that point in time? Many jobs had been lost in the local steel industry as a result. He asked whether it was the responsibility of the ITAC or the DTI to take action.

Mr Tsengiwe, on the role of the ITAC vis a vis the role of the DTI on being quicker to save the local steel industry, said when the Economic Development Department (EDD) was established then the administration of the International Trade Administration Act was transferred to the EDD, except for decision making powers on individual tariffs and trade remedy investigations that remained part of DTI. The ITAC made recommendations to the Minister of Trade and Industry. The DTI as a policy maker had a multi-pronged industry approach for the steel industry. Local procurement also sat with the DTI. Input costs such as electricity additionally fell within the realm of the DTI. The ITAC was responsible for implementing some of the elements. There was a process when it came to interventions in various sectors in terms of law. It took up to six months to increase tariffs. For industries in distress it could take a shorter four months.

Mr J Londt (DA, Western Cape) was concerned about the increased rental of the ITAC causing a deficit. Why had the DTI increased the rent?

The Chairperson stated that the ITAC reported to both the DTI and the Economic Development
Department. He noted that the rental of the ITAC had been increased by 56%. Why had the DTI charged the ITAC rental?

Mr Semela explained that the average annual rental was R15m per annum for the whole campus. This was 2014/15 figures. The DTI’s response was that they were already heavily subsidising the ITAC, hence the huge increase. Before 2014 the rental had been R3.4m which had later increased to around R6m.

Mr L Magwebu (DA, Eastern Cape) congratulated the ITAC on its clean audit and its good financial performance. He referred to slides 15 and 16 and said the Committee had been advised that the poultry industry in SA was under stress. There were huge job losses. He asked when the ITAC’s report over the poultry issue would be finalised. Timeframes such as 3-6 months were sufficient within which to provide members with clarity over the issue.  Dumping of poultry into SA was a concern. Jobs in the poultry industry had to be saved.
He also referred to slide 35, wherein it made mention that the ITAC had requested additional funds from National Treasury. One of the reasons for the request was that the ITAC had legal fees to cover. What was the ITAC’s litigation protocol? The ITAC was asked whether it engaged in litigation or whether it was defending matters against it.
On slide 33 he asked what the reasons were for the ITAC’s deficit. The ITAC was asked why it employed contract workers since it just increased expenses. Was it really necessary to employ contract workers?

Ms Janse van Vuuren on the poultry issue said that there were two cases. The one was against the USA which was with the South African Revenue Services (SARS) at the moment. The other case was with the European Union and the investigation had been completed. The entire process was now completed and the Minister of Trade and Industry needed to make a decision.

Mr Tsengiwe noted that in a value chain there could be conflicting interests. This was where the issue of litigation came in. When investigations were done there were winners and losers. For example, when the ITAC did investigations to increase tariffs on the importation of poultry so that local jobs could be retained there were importers who fought tooth and nail against it. It was a no brainer there would be contestation. The ITAC was consequently taken to court. The ITAC was taken to court 28 times. It had won 20 of the 28 matters thereby losing the remaining eight.

Mr Semela said due to additional work given to the ITAC it was forced to take on contract employees. In 2012/13 the ITAC only received R4m for salaries. The rest had to be covered by the ITAC. The stipend increase was only 5% per year. The Department of Public Service and Administration’s (DPSA’s) norm for stipend increases was 7% - 7.5%. The ITAC’s deficit was therefore growing year on year. In 2014 the ITAC had received four notices of motion. The ITAC had been successful on all four. There were still ongoing cases. The costs were thus also ongoing.  

Mr M Mhlanga (ANC, Mpumalanga) asked for detail on the employee profile of the ITAC. How many women were in executive positions? On Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) he asked how many companies had the ITAC empowered.

Mr Tsengiwe on the services of the ITAC, said there were tariff increases, rebates etc. These were done on application from the industry.

Mr Semela said that the ITAC’s female profile was 56%. At senior management positions at the end of 2016/17 there were six women and nine males. To date the female profile had increased to eight.  

The Chairperson encouraged Members to go through the actual Annual Report of the ITAC. The PowerPoint presentation was only a summarised version of the Annual Report. He pointed out that the ITAC’s female profile sat at 56%.

Mr Mhlanga asked that Members be provided with actual Annual Reports by Committee staff.

Ms M Dikgale (ANC, Limpopo) was also concerned about the 56% increase in the ITAC’S rental. She asked whether the ITAC had tried to negotiate for a lesser increase with the DTI.
On slide 25, she asked whether only the three provinces were involved in training development and performance. Were the rest of the provinces also covered? 
The ITAC was asked whether fines were issued after investigations were completed. If fines were payable what did the ITAC do with the funds it collected.

Mr Semela responded that the ITAC had engaged with the DTI on the rental issue. Discussions with the Director General of the EDD had even taken place. A discussion point was whether the ITAC should stay on the DTI’s campus or leave it.

Mr Tsengiwe responded on the issue of what the ITAC did with funds after conducting investigations. He said the ITAC did not charge for services. There were no funds collected after investigations. 

Mr Faber noted that tariff increases were supposed to protect local industry since dumping of steel, chicken etc was taking place. Who was in charge? There was DTI, the Competition Commission and the ITAC. The Committee needed to know who took the lead.

The Chairperson pointed out that most of the entities had been under the DTI before the EDD was formed.

Mr Y Vawda (EFF, Mpumalanga) was concerned that agricultural crops planted in SA were moving towards those that were valuable. It was all about maximising profits. This was at the expense of cash crops which contributed towards the food basket of SA. The result was that increasingly certain crops that SA needed had to be imported. He asked whether ITAC had identified this reality as problem in the future for SA. There were increases in job losses and hence poverty was increasing. This was a socio-economic discrepancy. What was being done about it?  He asked the ITAC to raise the issue with the DTI if it had not yet been identified as a possible problem in the future. What did industries like sugar and wine contribute towards the food basket of SA?
  
Mr Tsengiwe explained that government’s strategy was to maintain primary agriculture i.e. agri-processing so as to have value addition for both local and export markets. For the vast majority of agricultural products there was protection in place. In industrialised nations huge subsidies were paid to the agricultural sector. SA did not have subsidies. Trade measures were used to level the playing fields.

The Chairperson pointed out that in the Annual Report of the ITAC 2016/17 it stated that a matter of legal fees had been referred to National Treasury.

Mr Semela stated that the ITAC did not procure lawyers. The ITAC for each of its cases had used the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development’s attorneys. Huge amounts had gone for legal fees. The Office of the Auditor General of SA (AGSA) had stated that the ITAC had not followed procurement procedures. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development apparently had their own way of doing things.  The AGSA added that it was ITAC’s responsibility to abide by processes. The ITAC felt that it could not tell the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development how to do procurement. The ITAC paid the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development for its services. The ITAC was waiting on National Treasury to come back to it over the matter. Perhaps the alternative was for the ITAC to use private sector lawyers.

The Chairperson asked whether the issue had influenced the audit outcome of the ITAC.

Mr Semela responded that the ITAC should ideally have received a clean audit. The AGSA had felt that there was non-compliance with procurement procedures. The ITAC felt that it was the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development’s doing.

The Chairperson also asked about the Annual Report stating that irregular expenditure having been written off. The amount was around R300 000.

Mr Semela explained that the ITAC went through normal procurement processes of getting three service provider quotes. The service provider with the cheapest quote could not comply with what the ITAC needed. Consequently, the second cheapest service provider was appointed. According the AGSA the ITAC had not followed correct procedure. This was regarded as irregular expenditure by the AGSA. The rules said that it had to be condoned and written off.

The Chairperson asked who took the decision to procure and who took the decision to write off.

Mr Semela answered that the price committee made the appointment of the service provider and the accounting authority wrote off the amount after it was found to be irregular.

The Chairperson said that the Annual Report spoke about another irregular expenditure.

Mr Semela, on the second irregular expenditure, said it was about the banking details of a supplier being changed fraudulently. The matter followed the required processes and ended up in court. The South African Police Services (SAPS) had made no progress over the matter.

The Chairperson asked that the case number of the matter be provided to the Committee.

Mr Semela agreed to provide the case number to the Committee.

The Chairperson, on internships, noted that there seemed to be 90% placement. He asked how many people were taken in on internships.

Mr Semela said the number of people taken on in internships depended on the financial position of the ITAC at the time. The initial number was fifteen. Sometimes the ITAC absorbed the interns. To date the figure sat at four but once again it depended on the ITAC’s financial position. Most of the interns were able to get employment. Given the financial position of the ITAC it might not even take on interns the following year.

The Chairperson asked whether the ITAC did career path development.

Mr Semela pointed out that some of the interns had become investigators.

Mr Tsengiwe said that there was no skills gap internally at the ITAC. People got on the job training. Training for investigators was outsourced.

Mr Vawda noted that the gender balance of the ITAC seemed to be good. The response of the ITAC only highlighted his concern over crops being planted for their export value. The result was that SA had to import crops that it needed. What could be done to stop this? Crops needed to contribute to the food parcel. He pointed out that Morocco had a very interesting model which SA should look at.

Mr Tsengiwe said that the Moroccan model would be looked at. Government’s strategy was to maintain both primary and secondary agriculture to service both the local and export markets.  

Mr B Nthebe (ANC, North West) stated that the ITAC played a critical role for economic development in SA. SA struggled with trade balances. Low commodity prices affected SA. There had to be diversification of exports. He did not think progress was being made. Could the Committee in any way provide legislative framework assistance? As things stood GDP debt was growing. Tariffs played an important role. He asked what shortfalls there were.

Mr Tsengiwe said the concern was about what was in the export basket. There was dominance of export commodities. Diversification had taken place as there was automotives, clothing and plastics etc. He did feel that more could be done.

Mr Magwebu noted that internal controls seemed to be lacking if a supplier’s banking details could be changed. Internal controls needed to be strengthened. He asked that the ITAC provide the Committee with its action plan to address the AGSA’s findings.     

Mr Semela said the audit action plan would address the issue of internal controls. To change banking details of a service provider the ITAC required key information. Firstly, a letter from the bank was needed. Furthermore, all information needed to be provided. The fraudulent transaction looked legit. He stressed that the matter had taken place the year before. ITAC’s internal controls had failed. ITAC had learnt its lesson and now no longer accepted details electronically. Details had to be changed in person. There were additional security features. In 2016/17 there were eight to ten findings in the Annual Report. Four of them were of a technical nature.

Mr Mhlanga asked how the ITAC assisted the SAPS on copper theft. Legislation had been passed to stop copper theft.   

Mr Tsengiwe said that there were restrictions placed on scrap copper. Premium prices were paid abroad for copper. The hope was to discourage copper theft but it remained a challenge. Copper theft was a criminal offence and the ITAC worked with the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and the SAPS.

Ms Dikgale, on slide 25, asked why training development only took place in three provinces. Had other provinces also been considered.

Mr Tsengiwe said that slide 25 referred to training for internal staff.

The Chairperson reemphasised that the Committee needed to be provided with the ITAC’s audit action plan and the case number of the fraud case. In the interest of time he asked the Competition Commission to be as expedient as possible with its briefing. 

Briefing by the Competition Commission on its Annual Report 2016/17
The delegation comprised of Mr Tembinkosi Bonakele, Commissioner; and Mr Molathlegi Kgauwe, Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Mr Bonakele undertook the briefing.

The Competition Commission was tasked with regulating competition in the market. It investigated complaints, assessed mergers, evaluated exemption applications and undertook market enquiries and advocacy. The Committee was provided with insight into the organisation that was the Competition Commission. Some highlights were that the Commission concluded a far-reaching settlement with ArcelorMittal South Africa. Detail was also provided on the merger between Anhauser-Busch InBev and SABMiller. The Commission, in addition, had prevented an anti-competitive merger between Imerys South Africa and Andulusite Resources. Other operational highlights for 2016/17 were the introduction of individual criminal liability for collusion. The briefing continued with an overview of performance.

Merger Regulation
All six targets had been met. A total of 48 403 jobs had been saved by the Commission’s intervention. Fifteen mergers had been approved with public interest conditions.

Competition Enforcement
Six of the seven targets had been met. The Commission had initiated three investigations in priority sectors. The Commission also initiated investigations against various schools and uniform suppliers for excessive pricing.

Compliance & Litigation
Five of the six targets had been met. The Commission published public interest guidelines on 8 June 2016, issued 23 advisory opinions, oversaw 98 cases at litigation stage and entered into 21 settlements with parties. The Commission also imposed R1.628bn in administrative penalties for the year.

Strategic Collaboration & Advocacy
Nine of the ten targets were met. The Commission had made submissions on five government policies, concluded bilateral and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with Southern African Development Community (SADC) and Brazil, Russia, India, China and SA (BRICS) Bloc partners. It also supported Nigeria with competition legislation.

Building a High-Performance Agency
Two out of five targets were met. The Commission had completed the re-design of its organisational structure. It had also filled key leadership vacancies. A total of 35 employees had benefitted from bursaries and loans. R4.2m was spent on learning and development of staff.
On financials, the Commission’s total revenue decreased by R6m from R295m to R289m. Total expenditure increased by R71m from R296m to R367m. The Commission thus incurred a deficit of R78m compared to the previous year’s R1.2m. The AGSA on its viability assessment of the Commission stated that if the spending trend continued the Commission could run into problems with solvency of its business and meeting its payment obligations. The Commission did, however, manage to secure a clean audit finding.

Discussion
Mr Londt stated that the merger by Safair and Airlink was interesting. The Competition Commission was asked whether the continuous bailouts of South African Airways (SAA) from government were not unfair on emerging airlines. Had the Competition Commission looked into the issue?

Mr Faber pointed out that Comair had taken SAA to court and that an R45m fine was given against SAA. Where did these funds go when it was paid? On the matter of Vodacom’s exclusive dominance and the fact that its contract was being renewed, was this fair to other cell phone networks. He asked why the Competition Commission had declined Standard Bank’s request to release details on investigations into currency manipulation which emanated from 2015.

Mr Magwebu referred to slide 31, which spoke about the Competition Commission’s expenditure increasing by 24%. What had caused the increase? On criminal cases the Competition Commission was asked how it conducted investigations. Were its own investigators used or was there a multi-disciplinary approach used?

Mr Nthebe felt that the Competition Commission was one of the most underrated Commissions. The Competition Commission’s efforts were simply not covered by the media.
He was critical about the penalties that the Competition Commission imposed. The penalties were not significant and the Competition Commission did not enforce consequence management. The Competition Commission had to intervene on behalf of the vulnerable. There had to be mitigation processes in place.
On the Airlink Airlines matter, affordability needed to become an issue.
He pointed out on the takeover of SABMiller there had been displacement of labour issues.
He raised concerns about often times the school uniforms of public schools were only obtainable from one service provider.
The point was noted that the Competition Commission felt it needed to be adequately resourced. He asked why the Competition Commission referred to cartel competition as collusion.

Ms Dikgale congratulated the Competition Commission on it obtaining a clean audit. She asked whether the Competition Commission only supported the Nigerians or other African countries as well.
She asked what the R338m for administrative penalties was used for.
She agreed that the school uniform issue needed to be looked at. School uniforms were expensive and often there was a single supplier. Companies should subsidise school uniforms for students in rural areas.
She referred to slide 28, which spoke about the recruitment of eighteen graduates from historically previously disadvantaged people. How did the Competition Commission come up with the figure of eighteen?
  
Mr Mhlanga noted that big investors often wished to invest in SA and asked whether the Competition Commission had a policy on property ownership and worker ownership.

The Chairperson said that in the interests of time the responses by the Competition Commission to questions asked by Members should be done in writing and forwarded to the Committee by next week and Friday, 8 December 2017.

Committee Minutes
Minutes dated 31 October 2017, 7 and 14 November 2017 were adopted unamended.

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.

Share this page: