Mining Titles Registration Amendment Bill: finalisation

Meeting report

ECONOMIC AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
5 August, 2003
MINING TITLES REGISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL: FINALISATION

Chairperson: Mr T.B Tolo (ANC)

Documents Handed Out:
Mining Titles Registration Amendment Bill
Revised Schedule (Amended Laws, Section 53)

Summary
The Economic and Foreign Affairs Portfolio Committee finalised the Mining Titles Registration Amendment Bill. The only new amendment was revisions made to the Schedule of the Bill. The Committee adopted the Bill with the revised Schedule after being briefed on the Portfolio Committee amendments and the revised Schedule.

MINUTES
The Chairperson reminded members that in the previous meeting, the briefing on this Bill had revealed that the Bill was very technical and difficult to understand. He noted that the DME officials had been asked to clarify provide a recap of the essence of the bill and the amendments effected by the Portfolio Committee. Mr Setona (ANC) agreed.

Ms Bopape-Dlomo (DME) noted that the Committee had raised the issue of the redundancy of the Mining Board as constituted in the 1967 Act. When asked what proof the department had of the existence of the board, DME was unable to produce such proof since there were no minutes of meetings or records of who sits on the Board. When they managed to trace one member of the Board; the member indicated that he did not know what had happened to the Board.

Another issue had been that of records of mining rights and mineral rights from the previous regime. There were no records of rights.

Ms Bopape-Dlomo explained that DME had liaised with the Department of Land Affairs and had realised that the schedule was not comprehensive and changes had now been made to it.

The Chair asked the DME officials to go over the revised schedule and the amendments made by the Portfolio Committee.

Ms Bopape-Dlomo (DME) said that the DME delegation had been under the impression that they would not have to present anything. She asked for permission to confer with her colleagues.

The meeting was adjourned for about 10 minutes. When the session re-convened, the Chair apologised for the earlier confusion on how the session was to proceed.

DME Presentation
Ms Bopape-Dlomo (DME) noted the issues that had been amended:
- The first issue had been that the powers to change certain laws had been invested in the Director General and stakeholders had raised concerns since the Minister was responsible for formulation of laws. It was then agreed that these powers be invested in the Minister.
- A second issue had been that of keeping correspondence during the 5 years transition period. This had resulted in the changes to Clause 11 of the Bill.
- Another issue had been that of existing interest continuation in the transition period.
- On submission of diagrams, stakeholders did not want to submit drawings and plans at the application stage due to the effort and expense involved when there was a possibility that they would not be granted the title. To resolve this, it was agreed to submit plans and drawings when registering mining rights.
- Stakeholders had been concerned about the lack of access to the regulations, referred to in the Bill. These regulations have since been published and were available for public comments until 11 August, 2003.
- There had been a need to address the issue of mining rights granted by virtue of marriage, inheritance and succession. This should not be made automatic but rather the successor should have an interest in the mining rights.
- Another issue of importance was that of the Director General's mandate, subject to regulation, to destroy records. Since mining records in South Africa date as far back as 1800s, stakeholders felt that there could be some records of historical significance. It had been resolved that the destruction of records only be done with the consultation of the archive department, who would advise DME as to the historical value of the records.

The Committee agreed to the amendments as presented.

Ms Bopape-Dlomo said that Land Affairs and DME had finalised their discussions. She noted that the schedule had been further amended to deal with the following sections of the Deeds Registries Act No 47 of 1937 (see attached Schedule for changes and additions).

Discussion
Mr Setona (ANC) asked the DME officials to clarify how inheritance issues would be resolved. In particular, he wanted to know what would happen if a deceased holder of rights did not have an inheritor or the inheritor was not interested in the rights.

Ms Bopape-Dlomo replied that in such a case, the rights would revert to the state and be open for the public to acquire.

Ms Nel (ANC) asked for clarification on whether the Minister would regulate changes in rights and how this would work out since the Minister had a lot of issues to deal with.

Ms Bopape-Dlomo replied that the DME had been of the opinion that the Director General should do that because they were usually minor issues in rights granted but stakeholders were uncomfortable. The Minister and Director General were however comfortable with the arrangement proposed by the stakeholders. If any changes requested were minor or the Minister was too busy, she/he could delegate to the Director General.

The Chairperson asked the DME to provide the Committee with the regulations. He asked if members agreed to adopt the Mining Titles Registration Amendment Bill
and propose the amendment of the Schedule .

Mr Raju (DA) said he had been asked by his party that Clause 18 be changed so that Section 16(3) will read include Section 15 in addition to Section 9 and 11. As he was unable to state why the party wanted this change, Mr Setona said that his suggestion should not be adopted.

Ms Ramodibe (ANC) asked the DME officials to explain the implications of the DA suggested changes.

After consultation, Ms Bopape-Dlomo said that on the issue of inheritance and succession, some stakeholders had been concerned that their children and partners would not be able to inherit their mining rights and hence the discussion. With the transfer of rights, a transferee still has to qualify for the rights. She said that the suggested inclusion was therefore unnecessary.

Mr Setona (ANC) noted that to accelerated delivery of empowerment required the government to be proactive. People were not aware of certain provisions such as the need to respond in time and could therefore be disadvantaged. He gave an example of the Road Accident Fund and said that there were people that had been crippled in road accidents but had not claimed because of lack of awareness. He asked what the government was doing to ensure that people are empowered.

Ms Bopape-Dlomo (DME) replied that among the processes of DME was a requirement that holders of right give returns which are updates on the progress of their activities and why certain things were not being achieved. This then requires an inspection which would give the DME an opportunity to deal with such issues. This was the reason why the time period was left flexible because even communication difficulties would cause problems.

The Chairperson asked if the committee was in agreement to adopt the Bill with its proposed amendments to the Schedule. The Committee agreed.

The meeting was adjourned.