National Research Foundation Bill: finalisation

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed everyone and announced apologies from Dr Qhobela, CEO, NRF, Dr A Lotriet (DA), and Mr M Kekana (ANC).

Mr Thomas Auf der Heyde, Deputy Director-General: Research Development, DST, thanked the Chairperson for the welcome and extended the sincere apologies of the DG who was unfortunately unable to join the meeting today.

The Chairperson checked to ensure that Members where armed with the A and B Bills.

It was agreed that Members would agree clause by clause as the meeting progressed through the Bill.

Dr Barbara Loots, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, Parliament, would be taking the meeting through the Bill.

The National Research Foundation Amendment Bill [B 23-2017]
Dr Loots said that the A-list that was currently in front of Members indicated selective clauses that through the Committee’s deliberations had to be amended. Those clauses were then read into the Bill that the Department tabled and the result was then the draft B-Bill that upon accession would be tabled in the House for consideration. She would be going through the B-Bill clause by clause indicating which clauses amended by the A-list so it would be presented either with amendments or without so that Member comments could be transferred to the new Bill.

Clause 1
Clause 1 had the amendments that would be implemented in the principle act with regards to the definitions to ‘Department’, ‘national research facilities’, ‘research institutions’ and ‘science engagement’. This was therefore Clause 1 of the Bill with amendments as reflected in the A-list.

The Chairperson asked if this was clear to Members and if they agreed.

Members agreed.

Clause 2
Dr Loots said that in the Bill itself Clause 2 was not amended so it was up for a vote through Members without amendments.

The Chairperson asked if Members were in agreement with Clause 2.

Members agreed.

Clause 3
Dr Loots said that the amendments selected in Clause 3 came from the National Research Foundation (NRF) and the Department to standardise the phrasing ‘supporting’, ‘promoting and advancing research’ and ‘human capacity development’; and then to insert the word ‘capacity’ instead of ‘capital’. Clause 3 was up for adoption or acceptance with amendments.

The Chairperson put Clause 3 to the Committee.

The Members agreed.

Clause 4
Dr Loots said that the title was changed here and now reads ‘Powers of Minister to determine national policies and issue policy guideline’ in the A-list. The Clause 4 amendment was up for consideration, acceptance or change.

The Members agreed.

Clause 5
Dr Loots said that Clause 5 had many technical amendments which were reflected in the A-list with the proviso that the legal team did on the instructions from the Committee shift some of the functions and powers around. Clause 5 was thereby up for vote with amendments.

The Members agreed.

Clause 6
Dr Loots said that nothing had been changed to the content of Clause 6. Members had given the legal team the mandate to change the drafting thereof to make it clearer and more in line with plain language requirements. Clause 6 was available for voting with amendment.

The Chairperson asked if Members agreed.

Members agreed.

Clause 7
Dr Loots said that Clause 7 flowed from the discussion that the Committee had had on where in the principal act certain ‘provisions’ should refer to others. As per the instructions from the Committee it had been added in paragraph (b) in sub-section 4. This amended line 36 and there would be that insertion as determined in terms of sub – section 1 just to have that cross reference in there. Hence Clause 7 was amended as reflected in the A- list for the B-Bill to insert a cross reference in sub-section 4 to sub-section 1 in the principle Act. Clause 7 was up for vote with amendments.

Mr N Koornhof (ANC) asked rhetorically if the regulations would come to Parliament as was done in the previous instance.

The clause was accepted.

Clause 8
Dr Loots said that the same would apply to Clause 8 with regards to research institutions where an ‘also’ inserted a cross reference to Section 1. With that instruction from the Committee in the last meeting Clause 8 was up for vote with amendments.

The Chairperson asked Members if they agreed.

The Members agreed.

Clauses 9 and 10

Dr Loots said that Clause 9 and Clause 10 had not been amended during the deliberations so both those clauses were up for votes without amendments.

Both clauses were approved.

Clause 11
Dr Loots said that this clause had a redraft or re-phrase to clarify a certain aspect. Nothing in the content of the clause had been changed. Clause 11 was up for a vote with amendments.

The Chairperson asked Members if they agreed.

The Members agreed.

Clause 12
Dr Loots said that Clause 12 was up for vote with amendments. An ‘and’ that was missing was inserted, and the Committee had decided that paragraph (c) needed to be removed. Clause 12 was up for vote by the Committee with amendments.

The Chairperson asked if Members were okay with the clause.

The Members acquiesced.

Clause 13
Dr Loots said that Clause 13 had a knock-on effect from Clause 12 where the Committee deliberated on the Board and how it functioned, and requested that the re-appointment period be clarified. The amendment in Clause 13 spoke to the Chief Executive Officer being appointment for a term not exceeding five years and maybe re-appointed for a term not exceeding five years. Clause 13 was up for vote by the Committee with amendments.

Members agreed.

Clause 14
Dr Loots said that Clause 14 was up for vote without amendments.

The Chairperson put Clause 14 to Members.

Members accepted the clause.

Clause 15
Dr Loots said that Clause 15 had a minor deletion that occurred during discussions. A decision had been taken that the four different research functions had to be deleted to clarify the Foundation’s divisions and there were no restrictions. Whatever was required of a division, that division could then be established. Clause 15 was up for vote with amendments.

When Clause 15 was put to Members by the Chairperson, they agreed.

Clause 16
Dr Loots said that this clause was also one of them that the Committee allowed to be redrafted for easy reading purposes without any content changes. Clause 16 was up for vote with amendments.

When Clause 16 was put to Members by the Chairperson, they agreed.

Clause 17
Dr Loots said that Clause 17 had no amendments so it was up for vote without amendments.

Members agreed to Clause 17 when it was put to them by the Chairperson.

Clause 18
Dr Loots said that Clause 18 would look different to Members because following the deletion of certain parts it had just been collapsed into a single sentence. Clause 18 was open to vote with amendments.

When Clause 18 was put to Members by the Chairperson, they agreed.

Clauses 19-23
Dr Loots said that Clause 19, Clause 20, Clause 21, Clause 22, and Clause 23 were all as tabled initially so they were all open to vote without amendments.

Members agreed to Clauses 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23.

Clause 24
Dr Loots said that Clause 24 spoke to submissions on promulgations and whether promulgations would be sent to Parliament regarding deliberations lasting for a 30 day proviso be deleted. This would still be submitted to Parliament before promulgation but the 30 days would be deleted. Clause 24 was up for vote with amendment.

Members agreed to Clause 24 when it was put to them by the Chairperson.

Clause 25
Dr Loots said that Clause 25 had no amendments so it was for the Committee to vote on without amendments.

Members agreed on Clause 25.

Clause 26
Dr Loots said that Clause 26 spoke to the long title of the principal act and there it was just standardisation adding ‘support’ and ‘human capital’ was changed to ‘human capacity’. Clause 26 was open to the Committee for vote with amendment.

 
Members agreed to Clause 26 when it was put to them by the Chairperson.

Clause 27
Dr Loots said that the Committee had to vote on Clause 27 without amendments.


When Clause 27 was put to Members by the Chairperson, they agreed.


Mr Jacob Mahlangu, Legal Manager, NRF referred to page four of the Bill in paragraph 5(k) ‘(mB) incubate qualifying national research facilities prior to its declaration as a national research facility;”;’, and suggested ‘incubate a qualifying…’.

Dr Loots said that she did not see any ambiguity in the current phrasing, but if the Committee chose to rephrase it, this would be done.

The Committee, Advocate Bongiwe Mofundo, State Law Advisor, Parliament, and Mr Mahlangu agreed that the phrasing would remain as it was.

Mr Thomas auf der Heyde expressed appreciation and gratitude towards the Committee for its excellent scrutiny and inputs it had made on the Bill. He also, on behalf of the Department, expressed extreme gratitude to all the legal colleagues in the various offices that had worked with the Department’s team and the National Research Foundation in enabling the Committee to get to this point in its deliberations. An excellent collegiality was displayed in all of this work. Lastly, he stated that the Department supported all the responses from Dr Loots on the previous matter.

The Chairperson said that as a Committee a decision had been taken not to work in silos. This was one entity, one government, one Portfolio Committee that had the same objective to better the lives of people out there as a collective.

Committee Report on the Bill

The Chairperson read the Report of the Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology on the National Research Foundation Amendment Bill [B 23-2017] dated 28 March 2018.

The Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology having considered the subject of the National Research Foundation Amendment Bill [B 23-2017] National Assembly Section 75 referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a Section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments B23A of 2017. The Bill seeks to amend the National Research Foundation Act 23 of 1998 (Act No. 23 of 1998) in order to affect certain technical amendments and clarify the Minister’s regulatory power, as well as the powers and functions of the Foundation. The Committee further reports that on February 2018 it submitted an interim report to the National Assembly requesting permission in terms of Assembly rule 286 4c for the Committee to amend other provisions of the National Research Foundation Act, Act 23 of 1998. At subsequent deliberations on 14 March 2018 the Committee resolved to rescind its previous decision to request permission to amend other provisions of the above mentioned Act.

Mr Koornhof formally moved.

Ms Tuck formally seconded.

The Report was adopted by the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.