Financial Sector and Deposit Insurance Levies Bill & Financial Sector and Deposit Insurance Levies (Administration) and Deposit Insurance Premiums Bill: deliberations & adoption

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the meeting. He explained that the agenda of the meeting was to consider and adopt the Committee reports, clause by clause, on the Financial Sector and Deposit Insurance Levies Bill and the Financial Sector and Deposit Insurance Levies (Administration) and Deposit Insurance Premiums Bill. He then asked National Treasury to present its report on the socio-economic impact of the Bill on consumers.

Presentation: Financial Sector and Deposit Insurance Levies Bill and Administration Bill
Mr Ismail Momoniat, DDG: Tax and Financial Sector Policy, National Treasury, said that National Treasury had prepared a presentation and a report. The report had new information but was largely based on the socio-economic impact study that was done for the Bill. National Treasury met with the Financial Intermediaries Association (FIA) to engage it on the concerns it had about increases in fees. There was also a new levy that National Treasury wished to engage about.

He then introduced his team, which constituted of representatives from National Treasury, the Prudential Authority (PA), the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) and the South African Reserve Bank. The presence of these important financial regulators in the meeting was evidence that the financial sector was lucrative. For that reason, he believed that its major players had to pay for their own supervision.

National Treasury pointed out that financial institutions, if not regulated according to standard practices, could result in problems. Therefore, there was a need to check if institutions were not taking shortcuts to make short term profits. It also added that how these institutions treated customers was critical. This was evidenced by the 2008 financial crisis. The teaser loans for mortgages were the trigger for the crisis. South Africa has had instances in the past where widows and low-income workers who placed their savings got robbed by financial institutions. Although there were other Bills that were going to be passed, the proposed Bill was “the final big Bill”. Although it was an expensive structure, it was within international standards.

Some financial institutions, particularly big banks, had the capacity to out pay any legal defence against retail customers who may have taken them to court. This was the reason why the ombuds system had been developed to ensure that disputes were dealt with in an inexpensive way. This also provided fairness to customers. There were anti-money laundering provisions because South Africa was facing the possibility of being on the grey list. Inclusion into this list had immense consequences which potentially affected the country’s objectives of financial inclusion and transformation.

The PA was established in 2018 with a new regulatory mandate of ensuring the financial soundness and efficiency of all financial institutions. Prior to “Twin Peaks”, the Bank Supervision at the Reserve Bank was responsible for supervising banks. It also assumed responsibility for the regulation and supervision of insurers, financial conglomerates, certain market infrastructures and other financial institutions (see slide 6). In terms of funding requirements, R500 million (including special levy) was proposed to be collected in levies for the PA by the Reserve Bank. R11 million in fees was also to be collected from industry.

The FSCA on the other hand was previously the Financial Services Board (FSB) before the Financial Sector Regulation Act took effect in 2018. The FSCA had the mandate to ensure fair treatment of financial customers, financial integrity and efficiency of financial markets, financial inclusion, customer education and to ensure the fulfilment of the transformation objectives. R883 million was proposed to be collected by the FSCA in levies (including special levies) to fund its operations. An additional income of R66 million was envisaged, comprising of fees, interest received and other income. The total operating expenditure was expected to be R967 million, of which R617 million was for staff expenses and R350 million for general expenses such as operating a call centre, IT infrastructure and maintenance.

Other financial bodies that required funding included the Office of the Pension Fund Adjudicator, the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Ombud, Financial Tribunal, Ombud Council and the Corporation for Deposit Insurance (CoDI) (see slide 8).

National Treasury presented a summary of the structure of the financial sector and proposed levies. The statistics showed that the banking sector was shouldering the burden of funding these institutions. Second to them was the insurance sector (see slide 9). It also illustrated that there was a R290 million difference in the costs of financial regulation between the pre-Twin Peaks and post-Twin-Peaks period. National Treasury said costs in the sector were an endeavour to achieve balance. The costs of regulation could not disappear but could be assigned to different people/businesses in the economy. For regulation and supervision to be effective, the industry had to pay its fair share. It also stated that if regulators were inadequately resourced, the cost was passed onto customers.

Customers were said to benefit from the proposed financial sector regulations. For instance, retail financial customers were going to benefit from a substantially strengthened market conduct framework which was supported by strategies on financial capability and inclusion. Other positive outcomes included well-managed financial institutions, which in effect, improved the conduct of business and were inclusive of customers from poor households. Overall, the proposed regulations improved transparency, sustainability and costs of financial products and services.

National Treasury evaluated the impact of the levies on the institutions and how this could be potentially shifted to consumers. The reasons for imposing levies were to recover costs involved in the regulation of the sector. The FSCA and the PA were going to realise a combined budget shortfall of R403 million which was going to be absorbed via the reserves of the FSCA and equity injection from the Reserve Bank. These costs were not going to be recovered from the industry. The special levy that was alluded to earlier had adjusted the once-off payment of 15% of the levies in a single year to a 7.5% payment that was spread across two years and subsequently falling away in the third year and onwards. The delayed implementation of some proposed levies reduced the increase of payable levies from R290 million to R249 million in the immediate future.

In conclusion, Mr Momoniat said the presentation sought to demonstrate to the Committee the overwhelming benefits of the regulations to the consumers, the country and the companies. He pointed out that there were problems encountered in financial sectors, like temptations to cheat customers. This could be curtailed through strong controls and the existence of a strong regulatory system. He added that banking was all about trust and that if people did not trust banks, they would rush to withdraw their deposits from the banks. This caused problems. He said National Treasury tried to ensure that big institutions did not abuse their power, and treated customers fairly. In this regard, the benefits far exceeded the costs. Many of the requirements highlighted were needed to enable South African institutions to establish international correspondent banking relationships, pay for imports and receive the money that was due to them for their exports. He hoped that the presentation had demonstrated to the Committee that a thorough assessment was done. After over 10 years of planning, this was the final element to get the funding of the system right and to make the regulated entities pay towards the costs of regulating them, rather than use taxpayer funds.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked National Treasury team for drafting a comprehensive report. It was important to the Committee as lawmakers to understand the impact of the Bill on both the players and the public in general. He then asked Committee Members to comment on the report.

Dr D George (DA) welcomed the presentation and said it was evident that thought was put into it. However, he expressed concerns about the efficiency of the Bill. It was unusual for an entity that wanted to tax a sector that was regulating and covering its costs and setting the level of its tax. In this setting, there was very little incentive to be lean and efficient. As a result, it was conflictual. He pointed out that the country was experiencing rampant inflation and that its impact, horrendous impact, on the people of South Africa was yet to be seen. This was worsened by the unanticipated outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. All these factors brought with them massive increases in commodity prices, supply chain problems and food insecurity. Due to these circumstances, the financial sector was being battered, and the consumers of South Africa were being hammered. Consequently, the taxes charged on the sector were going to adversely affect the consumers. He said this was especially problematic considering that the tax rates were too high. He asked if there was a need to get input from the stakeholders.

The Chairperson asked for more clarity on the outstanding issues that were referred to in the presentation. He addressed Dr George’s question and said the stakeholders had been given enough time to make written and oral submissions. The report that had just been presented in the meeting was a result of the discussions the Committee had with stakeholders in the previous week. Therefore, the Committee was going to integrate all the concerns raised, including those by the stakeholders, into its report. He asked if the Standing Committee team was ready to integrate all the issues that had been presented. If not, the Committee had to arrange for another day to adopt the report. He then invited the National Treasury to respond to the questions that had been raised.

Mr Momoniat agreed with Dr George’s observation that it was not ideal for regulators to determine their own fees. He said this kind of arrangement lacked a sense of oversight. However, National Treasury had put in place governance mechanisms that gave the Minister the role to oversee and approve the budget. This was a much more transparent system than the previous one where the FSB did this more directly even though it sought approval from the Minister. In the new system, there was a role for National Treasury and the Minister to oversee the process and make sure that the costs were aligned with the expectations of National Treasury and ensure that there was no easy shifting of the burden onto institutions or consumers. He then invited his team to address some of the questions that were posed to the National Treasury.

Ms Katherine Gibson, Deputy Commissioner, FSCA, replied that the budgeting and levies processes were not things that the FSCA set unilaterally. These were highly transparent processes that were strictly governed by the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). There was evidence, internationally, that when businesses experienced economic decline, they adopted business models that favoured shareholders over customers. Given the state of the economy in South Africa, it was important to closely monitor financial institutions to ensure that they were not exploiting consumers. Apart from this, economic decline gave rise to scams. This had proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic as consumers increasingly moved online. Once again, the FSCA had an important role to play in ensuring that consumers were protected. She explained that although the numbers seemed large, calculations on the aggregate charges on the PA and FSCA worked out to be R10 per year. It was, therefore, important not to make sweeping statements about how these numbers were going to hurt customers and businesses. She confirmed that the FSCA met with the FIA and that the main issues discussed concerned the increases. The FSCA agreed to take on board recommendations by the FIA that there was a need to be sensitive to smaller entities and to try and make the changes more palatable for them.

The Chairperson thanked National Treasury for its comprehensive report. It helped the Committee understand the impact of the Bill that it was going to submit to Parliament. He said this was a very important process and expressed his appreciation to National Treasury and the entities that reported to it. He asked if it was possible for the Committee to integrate what had been presented into the report that was to be adopted by the Committee.

Dr Zakhele Hlophe, Committee Content Advisor, replied that he tried to incorporate what was in the National Treasury report into the Committee’s draft report. He advised that the Committee examine these changes during the deliberation of clauses to ascertain if the report covered all the issues that the Committee raised.

The Chairperson thanked Dr Hlophe for the feedback and asked Ms P Abraham (ANC) to lead the consideration, adoption and deliberation of the Bills as he was experiencing network problems.

Mr Allan Wicomb, Committee Secretary, explained the procedures involved with the consideration, deliberation and adoption of Bills. He invited Ms Jeannine Bednar-Giyose, Director: Fiscal and Intergovernmental Legislation, National Treasury, to interject when there were amendments to a clause that the Committee was considering. After this, the Committee had the liberty to choose whether or not to adopt the Bill with the proposed list of amendments presented by National Treasury.

Adoption of the Financial Sector and Deposit Insurance Levies Bill [B3 – 2022]

Ms Abraham thanked Mr Wicomb for advising the Committee. She flighted the Bill and invited National Treasury to comment on the sections of the Bill.

Clause 1 (1) of the Pension Funds Act, 1956
Ms Bednar-Giyose proposed amendments to Deposit Insurance Levy in the Definitions and interpretation section, Clause 1 (1) of the Pension Funds Act, 1956. After “Financial Sector Regulation Act”, additional wording was to be inserted to state “the types listed in Schedules one to six”. This helped clarify the types of entities that were being referred to.

Clause 7 (3) Appointment, Part A Financial sector levy and special levy
Ms Bednar-Giyose proposed the insertion of a new paragraph in Part A Financial sector levy and special levy, Clause 7 (3) Appointment. She proposed that where the clause indicated three in brackets, a paragraph (a) was to be inserted to make the existing clause a paragraph. Below a new paragraph (b) would be inserted stating “where a levy has already been paid in full for a levy year or levy period, during which the licence of a supervised entity is withdrawn or cancelled, a refund of the levy must be provided to the supervised entity or the proportion of the levy year or levy period subsequent to the withdrawal or cancellation of the licence.” This was intended to provide the potential to repay a pro rata amount of the levy if an entity’s licence was revoked or cancelled during the delivery period.

Clause 9 (4) Deposit insurance levy, Part B, Deposit insurance levy,
Ms Bednar-Giyose proposed the insertion of a new paragraph in Clause 9 (4) Deposit insurance levy, Part B, Deposit insurance levy. She proposed that where the clause indicated four in brackets, a paragraph (a) was to be inserted to make the existing clause a paragraph. A new paragraph (b) was to be inserted below with similar wording to proposed in Clause 7 (3) to allow for pro rata repayment of a levy during a levy period.

Clause 10 (1) (a) and (c) Amendment of Schedules
Ms Bednar-Giyose proposed to adjust the wording on Part C, Provisions applicable to all levies, Clause 10 (1) (a) Amendment of Schedules to state that “the Minister may amend a schedule with the concurrence of the financial sector body concerned. And after having published a proposed amended schedule in the Gazette for public comment for a period of at least 30 days, either by submitting an amended schedule to Parliament for approval, or in accordance with subsection (4). She also proposed to amend the wording at the beginning of Clause 10 (1) (c) to state that “If Parliament does not pass a resolution approving, adopting amendments to or rejecting the amended schedule within three months of the date of tabling, Parliament is deemed to have approved the amended schedule.” This enabled a comment period prior to the tabling of the amended schedules in Parliament for consideration.

Clause 11 (1) (a), (b), and (c) Exemption from levies
Ms Bednar-Giyose proposed the refinement of wording on Part C, Provisions applicable to all levies, Clause 11 (1) (a), to state that the “financial sector Conduct Authority may, in writing on application by a supervised entity or on its own initiative, exempt a supervised entity or a type or category of supervised entities from the payment of all or part of the financial sector that is specified in Schedules two to five.” She said it would be added that the entities could apply on their own or the authority could decide that it wished to grant exemptions if it had assessed the situation and determined that it was appropriate to do so either to an individual entity or a category of entities. The same wording was proposed for subsections (b) and (c) to enable the PA and the corporation to grant exemptions in relation to levies imposed under legislation.

Schedule 1 (2) Alleviation of double levy payment in respect of clearing house
Ms Bednar-Giyose proposed to amend item (2) Alleviation of double levy payment in respect of clearing house of Schedule 1 to read “the clearing house that is approved in terms of section 110 (6) of the Financial Markets Act to perform the functions of a central counterparty or a licenced independent Clearing House, who is also licenced as a central counterparty is liable to pay the levy applicable to a central counterparty, but is not liable to pay the levy applicable to an association associated clearing house or an independent clearing house. The proposed wording sought to address circumstances where there was a licenced independent clearing house that was also performing the functions of a central counterparty. This would have resulted in it paying two levies. 

Schedule 1 Table A
Ms Bednar-Giyose proposed to correct the spelling in the fifth column titled “Description of variable”, and first row titled “Bank or Branch”, to read “Standards”.

Schedule 2 (1) (a) (zB) (zC) Application
Ms Bednar-Giyose proposed in paragraph (a) to insert after the words “a bank”, the words or “a branch.” This aligned with what was indicated in Schedule 1. She proposed to omit paragraph (zB). This meant that paragraph (zC) was to become the new paragraph (zB).

Schedule 2 (2)
Ms Bednar-Giyose proposed similar changes to Schedule 1 (2). The wording was to be identical and to address a similar issue of a licenced independent Clearing House.

Schedule 2 Table B
Ms Bednar-Giyose proposed to replace in the fifth column titled “Description of variable”, and fifth row titled “Non-Life insurer and Lloyd’s”, where it stated “submitted to the Financial Sector Conduct Authority” with “submitted to the Prudential Authority”. The other amendment was to correct a formatting error in the fourth column titled “Variable Amount(s) (Rands)”, and fifth row titled “Non-Life insurer and Lloyd’s”. She said there was a “return after B” and that this had to be separated properly.

In the sixth row titled “Life insurer” and fifth column titled “Description of variable”, she proposed to remove in variable D the reference to the Financial Sector Conduct Authority and replace it with the reference to the Prudential Authority. The same corrections were to be done to variables E and F, that is, the replacement of Financial Sector Conduct Authority with Prudential Authority.

In the seventh row titled “Microinsurer” and fourth column titled “Variable Amount(s) (Rands)”, she proposed to insert a return after E so that E and V were not linked together. In row 17 titled “Pension fund administrator” and the fourth column titled “Variable Amount(s) (Rands)”, a return would be placed between M and 2 so that they were properly separated. Similarly in the next row and in the same column, a return was to be placed between N and V2. In the twentieth row titled “Collective Investment Schemes and Hedge Funds” and the fourth column titled “Variable Amount(s) (Rands)”, a return was to be placed between P and V2. In the next row titled “Foreign Collective Investment Schemes, a return was to be inserted between R and V2  in the fourth column titled “Variable Amount(s) (Rands)”. In row 23 titled “Collective investment scheme in participation bond” and a fourth column titled “Variable Amount(s) (Rands)”, a return was to be placed between U and V2.

Ms Bednar-Giyose said there were adjustments that the National Treasury wanted to propose but were not included in the draft that was sent to the Committee. However, she said if the Committee agreed to the proposal to make adjustments to the levies, an updated version of the document was going to be provided. In the twenty-fourth row titled “Category 1 or IV financial services Provider”, and the third column titled “Base Amount (Rands), she proposed to change the amount to 3600 instead of 4000. In the same row and the fourth column titled “Variable Amount(s) (Rands)”, she proposed to adjust the amount to 520. Also, in the same row and the seventh column titled “Maximum (Rands)”, the amount was to be adjusted to 2 500 000.

In the twenty-fifth row titled Category II, IIA or III financial services provider, and the third column titled “Base Amount (Rands), she proposed to adjust the amount from 8000 to 7500. In the same row and fourth column titled “Variable Amount(s) (Rands)”, she proposed to adjust the amount to 520. Similarly in the same row and the seventh column titled “Maximum (Rands)”, the amount was to be adjusted to 2 500 000.

In the twenty-sixth row titled “Category I or Category IV financial services provider and the third column titled “Base Amount (Rands), she proposed the adjustment of the amount t0 3600 from 4000. In the same row and next column, the variable formula was to be adjusted to 250. Similarly in the same row and seventh column titled “Maximum (Rands)”, the amount was to be adjusted to 2 500 000. Finally, she proposed to omit the row titled “Financial Service Provider (other).

Ms D Mabiletsa (ANC) moved to adopt the Bill.

Mr G Skosana (ANC) seconded.

Dr George said the DA wished to reserve its position on the Bill.

The Bill was adopted with reservations from the DA.

Dr Hlophe interjected and asked if it was possible to adopt the Bill with its amendments. Section 11 (6) (b) of the Money Bills Act required the Minister to comment on amendments to a Money Bill before it was adopted.

Ms Abraham asked if representatives from National Treasury could clarify this.

Mr Momoniat confirmed Dr Hlophe’s observation to be true. He said there was a need to get a letter from the Minister. He confessed that this was an omission by the National Treasury team and that he did not anticipate that the meeting was going to carry out clause by clause deliberations. He promised to provide the Committee with a letter from the Minister by the end of the day.

Adv Frank Jenkins, Senior Parliamentary Legal Advisor, confirmed that there was a need for input from the Minister. This could be communicated through a letter or an email.

Report of the Standing Committee on Finance on the Financial Sector and Deposit Insurance Bill [B3-2022]
Dr Hlophe provided an overview of the structure of the Committee’s report. He explained that the beginning of the report was an introduction and rationale for the Bill. It was part of the Twin Peaks regulator regime, together with many other Acts that had been passed like the Financial Sector Conduct Authority Act. He pointed out that it was essentially a Section 77 Bill. The Prudential Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority were the two main regulators. He explained that the purpose of the Bill was to raise funding for these institutions. A Money Bill was, therefore, important to raise this funding for these and other new institutions that had been included in the Financial Sector Laws Amendment which the Committee passed in 2021. These created, for the first time, the Deposit Insurance Fund, and Cooperation for Deposit Insurance. The report also illustrated that the Financial Sector contributed 24% of the South African Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This showed how crucial it was to the economy. On the Special Levy, he explained that it was a once-off charge. To alleviate pressure on the institutions, it was spread over three years. In the first year, the levy that was paid was 7.5% and this fell away in the third year. He mentioned that Clause 11 of the Bill sought to accommodate entities facing hardship and experiencing barriers to entry like competition.

He said the Committee scheduled public hearings on the Bill. This, however, did not happen. It would have been beneficial if it hosted public hearings and invited stakeholders to make presentations. Despite the absence of public hearings, the written submissions were comprehensive because they led to all the amendments that had been proposed. The report highlighted some of the Bills that constituted the Financial Sector Levies Bill. He also pointed out that the Committee was still awaiting the tabling of the Conduct of Financial Institutions Bill (CoFI Bill) which consolidated and strengthened market conduct laws which protected consumers against weak and harmful market practices. In the report, the Committee indicated the importance of levies in providing the necessary funding mechanisms to enable the sector to perform its functions. He said to fund the Prudential Authority and the Financial Sector Conduct Authority amounted to R1.6 billion per annum. This was a marginal increase of R290 million on the current costs of R1.3 billion. A study by National Treasury demonstrated that banks and insurance organisations, the largest contributors in the financial sector, contributed 0.3% and 0.2% respectively to the operating costs of the twin peaks regime. This was less than 1% of their profits per annum. The costs of these levies to consumers were going to be about 50 cents per month. The report indicated that the calculations of these levies were proportional to the size of the institution. Thus, for the banking sector, the largest institution was going to pay R45 million whilst the smallest paid R53 000. Dr Hlophe pointed out that although the Committee believed that these levies were necessary, it was concerned that the costs were going to be borne disproportionately by the customers, especially the poor and low-income earners. This was why it requested entities to present social and economic studies on the Bill before it was deliberated. Finally, the Committee recommended that an independent survey be conducted to examine the actual personal cost of the levies to consumers after a reasonable period they had been collected under the proposed system.

Ms Abraham thanked Dr Hlophe for the presentation and asked the Committee to comment on the report.

Mr Momoniat interjected and invited Ms Yanga Mputa, Chief Director: Tax Policy Unit, National Treasury, and Adv Jenkins to advise if the Committee could continue to adopt the Bill before the letter from the Minister was sent.

Ms Mputa said the Bill could not be adopted without a letter from the Minister. She asked Adv Jenkins to comment further on this matter.

AdvJenkins said although he agreed with Ms Mputa and Dr Hlophe’s observations, there was nothing illegal with the Committee adopting the report. The Committee could adopt the Bill and state in its report that it did so based on the condition that the Minister’s comments were included. This procedure was provided by Section 11 (6) (b). Therefore, in the interest of time, the Committee could adopt the Bill subject to the comments of the Minister being included.

Ms Abraham thanked Ms Mputa and Adv Jenkins for their advice. She said perhaps the Committee could consider Mr Momoniat’s advice to submit the comments to the ministry. She asked when the report was going to be tabled in the House. Was there a date set for it?

Mr Wicomb said there was no date set, especially with the budget votes that took priority. He said this was going to take a considerable amount of time to effect the amendments. He also said there was nothing on the parliamentary programme for the report to be considered.

Ms Abraham said National Treasury had to act immediately to ensure that the Committee adopted the report on the day of the meeting. She invited Committee Members to comment on the processes that had been discussed.

Mr Skosana supported the suggestion to adopt the Bill. He said the Committee had to ensure that it received the letter from the Minister. He said perhaps in the next meeting this letter had to be shared with Members before the Bill was debated in the House. He then moved for the adoption of the report.

Ms Mabiletsa seconded the move.

Dr George said the DA wished to reserve its position on the Bill.

Ms Abraham thanked the Committee Members for their responses. She then asked the Committee to move to the next item on the agenda.

Adoption of the Financial Sector and Deposit Insurance Levies (Administration) and Deposit Insurance Premiums Bill

Deposit insurance premiums, Section 166BG of the Financial Sector Regulation Act
Ms Bednar-Giyose, on page five, proposed to amend item (3) of Section 166BG of the Financial Sector Regulation Act. A new subsection (4) (b) was to be inserted to indicate that “Where a premium has already been paid in full for a premium period during which a member ceases to be a member, a refund of that premium must be paid to the former member for the proportion of the premium period subsequent to the cessation of membership.”

On page six, she proposed to amend item (6) (e) by inserting a subsection (7) (a) into Section 239 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act. In paragraph (b) of this subsection, she proposed to insert wording that states that, “in respect of deposit insurance premium proposals, the minister may amend schedule five with the concurrence of the corporation, and after having published a proposed amended schedule in the Gazette for public comment for a period of at least 30 days, either by substituting an amended schedule, submitting an amended schedule to Parliament for approval in accordance with paragraph (c) to (j), or in accordance with paragraphs (k) to (m). Further below in paragraph (d) wording that stated that, “if parliament does not pass a resolution approving, adopting amendments to or rejecting the amended schedule within three months of the date of tabling parliament”, was to be inserted.

In item (18) on page 11, Ms Bednar-Giyose proposed to replace the word “Levy” with “Premiums” in the sixth column titled “Formula”, and all the rows aligned to it. This was because this was relating to the Deposit Insurance Premium and not Levies.

Ms Mabiletsa moved to adopt the Bill.

Mr Skosana seconded.

Dr George said the DA wished to reserve its position on the Bill.

The Bill was adopted with reservations from the DA.

Adoption of the Report of the Standing Committee on Finance on the Financial Sector and Deposit Insurance (Administration) and Deposit Insurance Premiums Bill [B4-2022]
Dr Hlophe said there was very little to report on the Bill. The Committee only received one comment from the Banking Association of South Africa (BASA). These comments were addressed and there were no specific substantive issues to discuss.

Ms Abraham thanked Dr Hlophe for the presentation of the report. She then invited Mr Momoniat to comment on the report.

Mr Momoniat advised Dr Hlophe to include in the report the letter that confirmed that the Minister was aware of the amendments that had been made to the Bill.

Dr Hlophe said this only applied to Bills under Section 77. The current Bill was under Section 75, therefore, there was no need for the letter to adopt it.

Mr Momoniat thanked Dr Hlophe for clarifying this.

Ms Abraham then asked the Committee to adopt the report.

Mr Skosana moved.

Ms Mabiletsa seconded.

Dr George said the DA wished to reserve its position on the Bill.

The Bill was adopted with reservations from the DA.

Closing remarks
Ms Abraham thanked the Committee for its response and asked if there were any announcements.

Mr Wicomb said the Committee was not going to publish its reports in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee (ATC) as yet. It was going to wait for the letter from the Minister in order to attach it to the report. Once the letter was received, the report and the letter were going to be circulated among Committee Members for them to comment on before the report was published in the ATC. This was also dependent on how much time it was going to take to receive the letter.

Ms Abraham asked Mr Momoniat how much time it was going to take to receive the letter from National Treasury.

Mr Momoniat said the Committee was going to receive the letter the following day. He had hoped to provide it later that same day, but the Minister was currently preparing to give a speech on that day in the House.

Ms Abraham thanked Mr Momoniat for the feedback and confirmed that indeed National Treasury was going to be presenting the budget votes later on that day. She thanked the Committee, the parliamentary staff and the National Treasury team for their participation and commitment.

The meeting was adjourned.