National Small Business Amendment Bill: adoption

Meeting report

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
16 November 2004
NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS AMENDMENT BILL: ADOPTION

Acting Chairperson: Ms P Themba (ANC, Mpumalanga)

Documents handed out:
National Small Business Amendment Bill [B23-2004]
Portfolio Committee Amendments to Bill [B23A – 2004]
Bill with Portfolio Committee Amendments incorporated [B23B - 2004]

SUMMARY
The Committee considered the National Small Business Amendment Bill clause by clause and adopted it without amendments. Some Members were concerned that the Congress of South African Trade Unions had not been consulted when the Bill was initially drafted. They were assured that COSATU had participated in the public hearing and some of its proposals had been accommodated.

MINUTES
Mr J Strydom (Department Legal Drafter), Mr J Erasmus (Department Agency Management) and Ms H Lupuwana (Department Chief Operating Officer) represented the Department of Trade and Industry.

In the absence of the chairperson, Ms Themba acted as the Chairperson. She presented the Bill clause by clause and invited Members to raise questions or make comments on any aspect of the Bill.

Clause 2: Substitution of Chapter 3 of Act 102 of 1996
Clause 2(13)(a): Conflict of interest
Mr D Mkono (ANC, Eastern Cape) said that the Department had indicated that the Small Enterprise Development Agency should foster partnerships with COSATU and that amendments were introduced to cater for this. He asked the Department to indicate where there amendments were in the Bill.

Mr Strydom replied that COSATU had made written and oral submissions to the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry. They had suggested two amendments which had been accommodated by the Portfolio Committee. The first amendment was in Clause 9A(b) and the second was in Clause 10(1)(c)(vi).

Mr Mkono asked what was included in the term "stakeholders".

Mr Erasmus replied that there was a suggestion that the relevant stakeholders should be listed. However, it was decided that the phrase "relevant stakeholders" was inclusive of all stakeholders. The Agency had to foster partnerships with whichever institutions that would assist it in achieving its objectives.

Clause 2(16)(a): Restriction of use of name
Mr K Sinclaire (NNP, Northern Cape) said that the name Swedish Independent Development Agency (SIDA) was frequently used in the South African development environment. There was also a Canadian one, CIDA. There might be some confusion when people talk of the development agencies of Sweden, Canada or South Africa.

Mr Strydom replied that the use of the acronym SIDA would not fall within the ambit of the prohibition. The prohibition relates to the use of the acronym SEDA. The South African law applied domestically and did not prohibit the use of the acronym in Canada or Sweden.

Clause 2(17)(b): Transfer of staff
Mr Mkono said that Clause 17B(4) was vague. He asked if it referred to any pending legal proceedings.

Mr Strydom replied that the intention was to ensure that all pending legal proceedings were not stopped just because of the transfer. All proceedings, whatever their nature, would continue as if the person had not been transferred to Ntsika.

Clause 2(17)(c): Assets, liabilities and funds
Mr Sinclaire asked if Ntsika would have to be liquidated before the provisions of Clause 17C(1)(a)(i) applied.

Mr Strydom replied that Clauses 17C, 17A and 16B were transitional provisions. They related to various aspects of the transition. The Bill tried to deal with transitional arrangements collectively in respect of all possible institutions. The intention was that, as of the date of commencement of the Act and whatever the legal position of Ntsika might be, the transfer should take place to the new Agency.

Ms Lupuwana added that the clause related to contracts that Ntsika had. All contracts and liabilities would be transferred to the new Agency upon the commencement of the Act.

Clause 6: Substitution of expression in Act 102 of 1996
Mr Sinclaire asked what was the difference between a business and an enterprise.

Ms Lupuwana replied that the debate was that "business" was restricted to profit making institutions. With the incorporation of co-operatives, it was important to use the word "enterprise". This would include all forms of businesses.

Memorandum on the Objects of the Bill
Mr Mkono asked if COSATU had been consulted when the Bill had been drafted.

Mr Strydom replied that in some instances, consultations were conducted prior to the certification of Bills. In this case, public hearings were conducted by the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry and COSATU had participated in those hearings. The memorandum of the Bill was for explanatory purposes only and fell away once the Bill was passed into an Act.

Voting on Bill
The Committee agreed to adopt the Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.