2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B13-2006] (Reintroduced) : hearings

Meeting report

Date of Meeting:  14 Jul 2006

Minutes: 

SPORTS AND RECREATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

SPORTS AND RECREATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
14 July 2006
2010 FIFA WORLD CUP SOUTH AFRICA SPECIAL MEASURES BILLS: HEARINGS

Chairperson:

Mr B Khompela (ANC)

Documents handed out: 
Second 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B16-2006] 
2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B13-2006] (Reintroduced) 
Vodacom submission on 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bills
Mind Sports SA submission on 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bills

SUMMARY
The Committee heard submissions on the 2010 FIFA World Cup SA Special Measures Bills. Mind Sports South Africa submitted that the legislation was very open-ended and gave much power to many Ministers to draft and redraft regulations time and again which could have a detrimental effect on the country’s ability to host the World Cup. The Bill did not clearly indicate the financial implications for the state. It contained no provision for the transportation of corpses and the issue of terrorism. The issue of safety and security around stadiums was not clearly spelt out. For instance, the Bills did not indicate if all security officers would be designated as peace officers for the duration of the World Cup. It was important to have programmes that would complement the World Cup and ensure that people still visited the country even after the event. The World Cup was a once-off single event that would strain the country's resources with no long-term reward

Vodacom submitted that the period contemplated in terms of clause 2 should be reasonable and take into account existing rights and contractual arrangements of stadium owners, their sponsors and other business partners. There would be no compensation by FIFA or the Local Organising Committee for stadium owners during the period. The duration of the event might put some organisations in financial jeopardy. Vodacom sought clarity on whether clause 5 envisaged the closure of private business operations falling within the designated zones. Any closure would have severe commercial implications. Small business might be severely affected and surrounding business would be affected.

MINUTES
The Chairperson welcomed all who attended the hearing with a special welcome to ABSA Bank for attending even though they had already presented. He commented on media attention on the hearings. Parliament had called for public hearings in all the newspapers but there had not been a radio advert for blind people. He noted that Business Day had had a full-page article on the DTI's arguments. ABSA had also made a submission and the Chairperson had warned that they would be very lucky to make newspaper headlines. This morning he was vindicated by huge poster that said "ABSA demands compensation". The bank had received free advertising and this was one of the benefits of the World Cup. 

Submission by Mind Sports South Africa
Mr C Holliday, accompanied by Mr C Webster (President), made the presentation for Mind Sports which was a recognised sports federation. He had read the minutes of the Committee's meeting of 9 June 2006 which stated that "the agreements between FIFA and SAFA had to be reviewed as the Committee did not have this information. All South Africans needed to be part of the process". He fully agreed with the statement. The problem was that people were struggling with lack of information. He was of the view that the Bill was a brilliant rush job. Reading the minutes of 9 June, it appeared that the Bill should have been ready for presentation in December 2005. One of the major problems with the Bill was that it referred extensively to regulations to be made by various Ministers (about seven). The regulations were not yet available. 

Mr C Frolick (ANC) asked which Bill the presenter was referring to. 

Mr Holiday replied that he was referring to 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B13-2006]. 

Mr Frolick said that the presenter should refer to [B13- 2006] as reintroduced because a lot had happened since the 9 June meeting. The Bill had been split and there were two Bills. 

The Chairperson agreed that the presenter might have dealt with the original Bill before it was withdrawn from the Committee. At the present moment there were sections 75 and 76 Bills. The 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B13-2006] (Reintroduced) was a section 75 Bill [dealing with national matters] and the Second 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B16-2006] was a section 76 Bill [dealing with provincial matters].

Mr Holliday said that he was not a specialist in constitutional law. His comments were general and did not take into account the fact that there were sections 75 and 76 Bills. His document advising Mind Sports had not been prepared with a view to submitting it to the Committee. He reiterated that the regulations for the legislation were not yet available for consideration. He wondered if the Committee had had sight of the regulations. His impression was that the legislation, as it stood, was very open ended. The main issue was not about right or wrong but about bad law. The implication was that the Committee could recommend the entire House to make laws which could transfer the powers of Parliament to a Minister. The concept of democracy entailed that Parliament made law and the Executive enforced it. The way the legislation was presented opened up a potential can of worms. The legislation would allow Ministers to draft and redraft regulations time and again and this could have a detrimental effect on the country’s ability to host the World Cup. 

The World Cup would take place in South Africa's territory. A lot of people would come and use the country's resources and infrastructure and this would cost money. He could not understand how there would be no financial implications for the State. The entire world was living in fear of terrorism. Since the end of the previous regime, SA had been privileged in the sense that, except for limited issues, it had not been exposed to large-scale terrorism. There was no mention of anti-terrorism provisions in the legislation. He wondered what the government would do should a person hijack a plane from the Johannesburg International Airport and decide to crash it into one of the World Cup stadiums. This was a very real possibility. Last month there was an individual who had tried to hijack a plane from Cape Town to Johannesburg. The possibility of someone hijacking a plane and crashing it into a stadium was not on the table when the old regime had passed its terrorism legislation. The German Parliament had made legislation that authorised the government to shoot down hijacked passenger planes but the German Constitutional Court ruled that such legislation was contrary to the spirit of the German Republic. He did not express an opinion on how the SA Constitutional Court might decide such a matter but felt that the lives of 70 000 people in a stadium were worth more that the lives of 300 people in an aircraft. 

He said that the Bill sensibly provided for bringing medical contingents and equipment into the country by foreign teams. However, there was no provision dealing with the transportation of corpses. It was a reality that people might die in the country due to the road system, being thrown off moving trains or due to terrorism. Would dead footballers be transported in terms of the current legislation or would special provisions be made for this? Up to now, most of the World Cup hosting countries had relied on very substantial secondary legislation. It was very simple to move a corpse of an Italian player who had died in Germany to Italy. SA was not part of the European Union and was also not privy to the kind of legislation that was already in place in the European Union. There was a need to make provision for this. There was also no provision dealing with drug testing in the event that a whole team was sent for drug testing. There were organisations like the South African Institute for Drug Free Sport that specialised in drug testing at sports events. The country's forensic laboratories were already over extended and could not cope with current demands. He wondered what the situation would be like when there was about four hundred footballers who did not speak any of the country's languages. It would be difficult to get samples, test them and give the results on time. 

The Bill distinguished between teams and FIFA dignitaries. Would referees need work permits when they come into the country? Section 15 of the Merchandise Marks Act specifically dealt with ambush marketing. It appeared as if Parliament or the Minister had no confidence in SA's normal legislation.

The Merchandise Marks Act should protect this event but the problem was that the Minister of Trade and Industry could extend the protection for an unlimited period. The normal legislation should fall back into place once the event was over. If corruption and fraud were so rife that there was a need to extend the provision indefinitely, this would be a serious problem. He proposed that the provision should be limited to twelve months but with a possibility of extending it. 

Mr Holliday said that he had also commented on the Safety and Security at Recreational Events Bill but he believed that the Bill had since been passed into law. The Safety and Security at Recreational Events Bill dealt with issues like traffic free zones, venues and access control. The Bills under discussion did not refer to the Safety and Security at Recreational Event Bill. He said that in Netherlands, all security officers were police reservists by default. This meant that any security officer was automatically imbued with the authority of a police officer. He said that he was not saying that this should immediately be done in South Africa, given that there had been situations wherein striking security officers had thrown passengers off moving trains. He was not sure if all security officers in the country were fit to be police reservists. The Bill implied that security officers who would be employed at the FIFA World Cup would in some instances have far-reaching powers of search and seizure compared to the powers that police officers enjoyed. He submitted that at least for the duration of the event, the SA Police Services should train qualified individuals who would be used as security officers. Such people should then be given a reservist's status. 

He was concerned by the apparent lack of commitment from some government departments to the World Cup. The minutes of 9 June specifically provided that the Department of Sports and Recreation had sent letters to other relevant departments at a Director General level but had received no response. The responses were only given when the letters were sent to ministerial level. The impression was that the event might be a priority for some but generally, it did not seem to be a priority. The minutes also quoted Mr G Boshoff (Legal Adviser: SRSA) as saying that the Bill "would enhance South Africa’s international image and prove its capacity to host major events". Mr Holliday was of the view that legislation could not achieve this. It could only prove that SA could make laws. The enhancement of the country's image would depend on its performance during the event. 

He said that experience had shown that countries that had hosted the World Cup had experienced extremely high levels of low service provision to tourists. The country's infrastructure could only handle 500 000 tourists per year and the World Cup would bring about five million people. The media had indicated that the country was not expecting so many tourists. The infrastructure would not be able to handle such a large number of people. Some teams would lose their games and there would only be one winner at the end of the tournament. People would go back to their countries with a bad taste in their mouths. They would have no reason to return or encourage people to come to the country on holiday. The country should not stop its efforts at the World Cup but there should be a long-term project to find similar events and create a continuous programme of bringing events of this nature to the country. This would ensure that tourists would continue to come to the country. The problem was that this was a once-off single event that would strain the country's resources but with no long-term reward. 

Football was Africa's game and came after Morabaraba. The event should be to the benefit of all people. He said that he was privileged to be driven from the airport to Parliament in a 17-seater bus carrying only two people. His heart ached for the people who lived in the shacks along the road. People who lived in the shacks should also benefit from the games. Hosting the World Cup as the only event was bad. The Olympic Games were bad for Athens and since then the number of tourists visiting the area was 50 % less than what it was before the games. The country needed as series of such events in order to get any benefits. 

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked the presenter for the thought provoking presentation. He invited Sports and Recreation SA to give some response to the issues raised in the presentation. He was impressed by the fact that Mr Holliday had given himself some time to read the minutes of the Committee's meetings. 

Mr Boshoff replied that Mr Holliday had scrutinised the first version of the Bill. The Committee had had extensive discussions on the Bill. A lot of issues raised in the submission had already been addressed in the Bills. It was true that the regulations had not yet been promulgated but the practice was that one should first create the empowering legislation and then have regulations. Regulations would come at a later stage. He did not believe that the regulations would open a can of worms. The regulations would be submitted to Parliament for scrutiny by the Committee. It was correct that there was no reflection on the financial implications in the original Bill. It was initially provided that there would be no financial implications to the State but this was changed after the Department had received the comments of Mr B Holomisa (UDM). There was a provision in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill that dealt with financial implications for the State. It provided that each Department that had given a guarantee in respect of the 2010 FIFA World Cup had the financial responsibility related to its guarantee. National Treasury would deal with any money matter by way of a money Bill. 

He said that Mr Holliday had also spoken about terrorism and safety risks. He had also scrutinised that the Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Bill. The Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Bill was in its 30th version and would soon be submitted to cabinet. He was not sure which version Mr Holliday had read. It was not correct that the Bill had been passed into law. The Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Bill had addressed all the findings of the Ngoepe Commission of inquiry. The Bill would continue a Schedule indicating objects that would not be allowed in the stadiums in 2010. 

Mr Boshoff said that football players would also be protected in terms of the Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Bill. Sports and Recreation SA was in the process of discussing amendments to the South African Institute for Drug Free Sport Act. The Bill would address issues like drug testing and world harmonise legislation with the world ant-doping code. The government had also expressed its alignment with the UNESCO Convention against doping in sport. It was in the process of finalising a document for the ratification of the instrument. The original Bill had provided that teams would not have to apply for working permits but this had since changed following meetings with the Department of Home Affairs. Any person who comes to work would have to apply for a work permit and this included a referee. The way the original Bill dealt with issues like ambush marketing had been improved. The Minister of Trade and Industry had already proclaimed that the 2010 World Cup would be protected in terms of section 15 of the Merchandise Marks Act for a period not later than six months after the final termination of the event. 

He said that the Criminal Procedure Act provided that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development might declare certain persons as peace officers for specific purposes. This included security officers. 

Mr Holiday thanked the Committee for not chasing him out of the room and giving him an opportunity to respond to questions raised. He asked for forgiveness from everybody who might be offended by what he had to say. He said that he was not a "yes man". The Committee had approached the wrong person if it had wanted somebody who would pat it on the back and said that it had done a good job. His job or vocation was to read document such as this and give a critical assessment. This was what he had attempted to do. He did not intend to offend anyone with his comments. He said that he did not watch television and did not even have a television set at home because he found TV news very emotional. Soccer was a very emotional game and people died because of their emotions. There were several deaths in the recent World Cup and one of them was of an Italian man who died of heart attack when trying to hang the Italian flag on flag post. He said that he did not come to Parliament with the intention to make political statements but to present his thoughts clearly and honestly to the Committee. He believed that he had presented his thoughts clearly and honestly. SA was his priority and this was one reason why he had bothered to read the Bill. He refused to be drawn into any political debate. 

He conceded that he was not aware of day to day work of Committee as he was neither employed in Parliament nor a Member of Parliament. He was not aware of what had happened during the hearings he had not attended. He said that he had spent most of the week in court. The Bill was drafted in order to comply with government guarantees. The Bills should cover as much as was required in order to meet the requirements. His view was that there would be uncertainties should too many issues be left out to be dealt with by way of regulations. Laws and not regulations ran the country. Nobody was in a position to give the meaning of the regulations to the Committee. He was happy that, based on his written submission, the 2010 World Cup would be protected in terms of section 15 of the Merchandise Marks Act for a period not later than six months after the final termination of the event. He was aware of the provision of the Criminal Procedure Act but was concerned that the Bill would give peace officers powers that exceeded those given to the police officers in normal peace times. The World Cup would be a war zone. He was also concerned about who would train the peace officers. Who would be a proper and fit person to be employed as a peace officer? Would the Minister just wake up and say all security officers were peace officers for the purposes of the World Cup? 

Mr Holliday replied that the Bill was indirect in some respects. He referred to the financial implications of the Bill as read by Mr Boshoff. It was unclear who Parliament would be authorising to spend the money. Would the organisers of the event simply present a bill to Treasury and expect it to pay? The Soccer World Cup was a major event. Cricket was played by a handful of countries. Rugby was not played in Eastern Europe where soccer was played. The possibility of many people coming into the country was great compared to when dealing with the cricket or rugby world cups. The impression was that everything had been dealt with and there were no outstanding issues. The question was what issues had been overlooked and this was the motivation for his submission. He thanked Mr Boshoff for pointing out that his submission had already been included in the changes made to the original Bill. This meant that his submission on the original document was not altogether wasted.

Mr Frolick said that it was good that the committee was getting different opinions and interpretations about the 2010 FIFA World Cup. It would not be for the first time that SA would be hosting a big event. There was past experiences and there were existing laws. The Bill was not intended to re-write any laws. He was confident that the security forces could deal with any threat that might arise. He noted the example given of an attempted hijacking of a South African Airways plane and said that it was a clear illustration that the country had the necessary measures to deal with such issues. Something worse could have happened if the country did not have measures to deal with such acts. 

He was confident that the government and State were in control of the situation. In terms of doping, SA had a proud record. There were events that had taken place in the country wherein a lot of athletes were tested. The electorate had endorse the ANC's 2014 Plan and the 2010 World Cup was part of what had to be done by 2014. The ANC would once again in 2009 go back to the electorate and ask if they were happy with what the ANC had done so far. The issue was not only to host a World Cup of international standards but also about improving and uplifting the conditions of people in terms of transport, housing, health care and other basic service. Parliament would never abscond from its duties and willy nilly give certain rights away. 

Mr T Louw (ANC) said that whilst he agreed Mr Holliday in his assertion that it was bad for lawyers to make bad laws, it was equally bad for lawyers to just pick up something from the street and come to Parliament and make comments on something that they did not fully understand. There was the misconception that soccer was a black sport. Soccer was a South African Sport just like cricket and rugby. Some people had closed their ears and eyes to what was happening during the dawn of liberation in 1994. He said that he was not referring to Mr Holliday. It was only after 19994 that they woke up and realised that things had changed or were changing. The country could not go back. SA had hosted major tournaments like the rugby and cricket World Cups and the conference on sustainable development. 

He said that the shacks along the N2 were there when the country hosted the Cricket and Rugby World Cups and might still be there in 2010 but this did not mean that government was not doing anything about them. It was surprising that there were no concerns about poverty, shacks and other issues when SA hosted events involving the so-called white sports. It was only now that the country would host the Soccer World Cup that people were beginning to come up with such issues. When reading newspapers like Rapport and Die Burger and some irresponsible statements made by some politicians, one could see how negative they were in the country's ability to host the tournament. Mr Holliday had spoken in more than 500 words and none of them were positive. He was simply saying that he did not trust his own government and that it was so corrupt that things would fall apart come 2010. The statement about transporting or exporting corpses was ridiculous and preposterous. As a lawyer he should know that that there were laws that dealt with such an issue. It did not matter whether SA was not a member of the European Union. Nobody was expecting any person to die during the tournament and the necessary arrangements would be made should a person die. He advised Mr Holliday as a South African and a lawyer that the World Cup was for all people. Mr Holliday should begin to have some trust in the government and its ability to do certain things. The government had time again proved the prophets of doom wrong. South Africa needed Mr Holliday's talent and wisdom as a lawyer to go out to the community and speak and rally people behind the 2010 World Cup. There was no more space for negativity.

Mr Holliday replied that his comments were not political statements. When dealing with fraud and its investigation, the emphasis fell on checks and balances. Investigations were conducted when there was a lack of trust. There was no intention to launch a political attack on the House, the ANC or the government. He did not see himself as negative and his submission was his honest opinion. He maintained that soccer and morabarabawere black sports in South Africa. 

Mr M Dikgacwi (ANC) said that the input made by Mr Holliday deserved such kind of reaction. The 2010 World Cup was here to stay and world not go to Australia. SA was ready to host it. There was a need to correct the problem of negativity because it gave the impression that SA was not ready to host the event. The shacks along the N2 had been there even before 1994 and the Minister of Housing was doing something about them. He cited the N2 Gateway Project as an example of projects aimed at addressing the problem. The Bill would look at all the issue raised by the submission. People would be protected and would go to the stadiums and go back alive. 

Mr L Reid (ANC) said that President Mbeki had said that there were people who regarded it as their professional duty to spread these sort of negative sentiments about SA's preparedness to stage the event. It was clear that there were certain politicians from a certain party who had raised these issues. In Germany there were some people who had used newspapers to question SA's ability to host event. South Africa was more than ready to host the event. People who had issues with the country's ability to host event should look at developments in airports. The road from the Cape Town International Airport was being widened to make provision for buses that would take visitors to the Greenpoint Stadium. People who came to Parliament and question Parliament or the drafters on legislation should come prepared. It was clear that the presentation was based on the minutes of the 9th of June and the first version of the Bill. A lot had happened since then. Mr Holliday would have seen this had he been in Parliament since Monday. A lot of submissions had been made since the beginning of the process. It was offensive for Mr Holliday to come and say that the Committee was making bad law. The ANC had received a mandate from 70% of the people. Such people trusted the ANC to make good laws and it was its intention to do just that. 

A Member of the Committee thanked the presenter for presenting his concerns around the Bills. She assured Mr Holliday that other government departments were involved in the Bills. She could not understand what was the real problem that Mr Holliday was trying to highlight when he referred to people who did not speak any of South Africa's languages coming to the country. She believed that it was not only German speaking people who had participated in the 2006 FIFA World Cup hosted in Germany. People from across the world had participated in the event and there were means and ways used to ensure that everybody was comfortable. SA had hosted many events and language was one of the logistics. It was not desirable to accommodate all logistics in the Bill. It should accommodate strategic and key issues. The shacks along the N2 were inherited from the old regime and the government was dealing with them as an ongoing programme for housing and not only in relation to 2010. She urged all concerned stakeholders to join hands and come with solution to ensure the success of the legislation. People should not only look at negative sides of the Bill. 

A Member of the Committee noted that the document submitted to the Committee had said that the Bill was a "deceptively short document". He asked the presenter to elaborate on this. There was a statement that said that it "seems acceptable as teams traditionally travel with own medical personnel and own medicines which, due to language and cultural barriers, may present unnecessary hazards and cultural problems during the event". He asked the presenter to clarify the meaning of this statement. It might be helpful to give Mr Holliday a Vuvuzela so that he could get ready for the 2010 World Cup. 

Mr Holliday believed that the two Bills were deceptively short. The number of pages and clauses involved were very limited. The documents were not thick and it was very simple to read through them. The implications of the legislation were extremely far reaching. It would allow people to bring in probably banned substances into the country for the use on their players. This was what foreign medical supplies meant. The Bills were deceptive because the authority created in the legislation was extensive. South Africa had banned substances and the Bills would allow foreign teams to bring their own medical supplies. It appeared that substances that were illegal in the country would become legal due to the legislation. 

He said that people who would come here would come from different backgrounds. There would be people with backgrounds in different languages and some of them would be illiterate in English. He pointed out that he was allergic to penicillin and that his doctor almost killed him two years ago with it. He used an example of the Polish team breaking into the finals of the World Cup. One of their players might be involved in a bar fight or car accident. Suppose that such a player could not speak or write in English. It would be difficult for that person to person to communicate his disease. This was one of the health hazards that the country might face. There was no intention to say that people who would come to SA would bring diseases along with them. 

In conclusion, he hoped that his submission and his presence before the Committee would allow the Committee to make a good or perhaps an even better decision. Complacency was a very big enemy. 

Mr Frolick said that there were certain things that could be amended in Bills brought before Parliament. The Minister had some discretion to exercise in relation to which medicines could be brought into the country. The Committee was acutely aware of some of the issues raised in the submission. It was never the intention that the Committee should pass Bills as presented to it by the drafters. The purpose of engaging in public hearings was to ensure that the public had an opportunity to propose changes to the Bills. In terms of the Constitution, any cent of the taxpayers' money to be spent by government had to come to Parliament in the form of money Bill or Budget. A Department would have no ground to spend any money unless the expenditure had been approved by Parliament. The Committee had the discretion to decide what was acceptable in terms of the legislation and the government guarantees. There was never an intention to have a hundred paged Bill. Very few pieces of legislation were amended in Germany to allow that successful World Cup to take place. Quantity did not mean quality. 

The Chairperson said that Mr Holliday did not have to cry or regret coming to the Committee. It was the Committee’s duty to hear all stakeholders. The Committee had decided to hear the views of all people including the right wings who were totally opposed to the hosting of the event in this country. The President had said that it would not be for the first time that some little pockets of people had doubted the country's ability to do certain things. In the early 1990s there were people in Kroonstad who had bought groceries and other supplies in very large quantities because they had expected the country to turn into a war zone. The fears were inspired by the fact that black people were going to take over the government. Such people were stuck with a lot of supply that they could not even use because no war took place. The World Cup in South Africa would be very successful. The World Cup would not bring donations for the infrastructure of the country. The infrastructure programme had been in place for some time. 

He said that there was a man from Guinea-Bissau who once said that "tell no lies and claim no easy victories". He was not saying that Mr Holiday was telling lies and claiming easy victories but trying to point out that the amendments that Mr Holliday thought were his victories were not really his victories. The Committee had made some of the changes after its 9 June meeting. He lamented the fact that the submission had proposed no solutions to the problems raised. The Committee would deal with a Bill related to doping as from the 1st of August 2006. It would still require the wisdom of Mr Holliday when dealing with the Bill. 

Submission by Vodacom
Mr M Tyamzashe (Executive Director: Stakeholder Relations) and Mr P Matlare (Executive Director: Commercial) attended the meeting. Mr Tyamzashe said that the submission would focus on both Bills. Vodacom learnt about the Bills a few weeks ago when they were introduced in Parliament. Like many South Africans, particularly those with investment in sports, Vodacom was taken aback by what it thought would be included in the Bill. Vodacom had been a key supporter and sponsor of sport in SA for more than a decade. It worked closely with federations, clubs and individuals to promote best practice in South African sport. It believed that the success of the 2010 World Cup was critical to all South Africans. Mr Matlare took the Committee's through Vodacom's concerns on the Bills. (See document attached).

Discussion

The Chairperson said that he had ad expected that all people who would be affected would attend the hearings. People would complain that they were not consulted in the drafting of the legislation even though they were invited to make comments on the Bills. He invited the departments to respond to the submission. 

Mr M Netshitenzhe (Director: DTI) focussed on clause 2 of the Second 2010 FIFA World Cup SA Special Measures Bill. He agreed with Mr Holliday that section 15A of the Merchandise Marks Act dealt with some of the issues under discussion. It talked about the Minister of Trade and Industry having to designate certain events as protected events. The intention was to make section 15A to this Bill. The period provided in the Act was two months. The Department did not tamper with the period when the country hosted the Cricket World Cup in 2003 because that event could not be compared to the Soccer World Cup. FIFA had proposed a period of 24 months but the Department felt that a period of six months would be appropriate. He agreed that the period for which the event should be protected after termination should be shorter and the decision was six months. Clause 2 would be amended to provide for a six months period. 

With regard to marketing rights in stadiums, the government was aware that there were existing rights. There was only one right that was absolute (namely, life) and all other rights could be limited in terms of the Constitution. The government wanted to attract the event into the country. There would be some temporary limitation of rights. The government thought that the event would be good for everyone and never thought about compensation. There was no intention to suspend the Constitution and people could exercise their rights should they feel that their rights were being trampled upon. In the end the government had to make a business decision and it would discuss all burning issues with all relevant stakeholders. 

Mr Boshoff agreed that the protected status of the world cup would be extended to a date later than one months but not exceeding than six months. The Minister of Trade and Industry had already made a proclamation that the period should be six months after the final termination of the event. The proclamation was issued on 25 May 2006 and was effective as from that day up until six months after the termination of the event. 

Dr Phahla (CEO: South African Sports Commission) said that clause 2 was more about the protection of the event. The proclamation was already in operation in order to protect the marketing rights of FIFA. 2010 FIFA World Cup was declared a protected event in relation to its marks. This protection had not direct relation to the issue of clean stadiums. FIFA wanted protection for a 24 months period because the sale of merchandise normally went on for a long period after the event had been terminated. The period in relation to the use of stadiums could even be shorter judging from the experience of Germany. 

The Chairperson said Mr Matlare was referring to the usage of a stadium that had a Vodacom emblem. He was saying that the period could not be longer than one month.

Mr Netshitenzhe said that clause 2 was about the status of the World Cup as a protected event. Negotiations were taking place in hosting cities in relation to the obscuring of other brands before, during or after the event. 

The Chairperson said that FIFA would be given six months after the event to fold everything and there would be no protection after that period. As far as the activities in the stadiums, Germany had negotiated that there should be some tampering with some brands 15 days before and that everything should go back to normal five days after the games. He asked if Vodacom agreed that the event should be protected from the date of the proclamation up to six months after the final termination of the event. 

Mr Matlare made a distinction in terms of FIFA's marketing rights in terms of their marks and the actual event. He had no objection in relation to FIFA being able to market and sell its goods and services post that period provided that those who sold normal and ordinary merchandise would not be restricted to do so. The principle concern was around the event itself. Vodacom had some very strong views about the timeframes based on pure practicalities. Vodacom knew how long it took to put up signs, put them and to clean up stadiums. This did not take more than one month. 

Mr Netshitenzhe asked if there was agreement that there would be certain dates in relation to the removal of brands in the stadium. This was not dealt with in clause 2 and would be discussed at a later stage. 

Mr Matlare hoped that the Committee would understand Vodacom's concerns given that the legislation was silent on something very important. The removal of brands in the stadiums impacted on the ability of South Africans to conduct business. He hoped that Vodacom would be allowed to make a further submission once it had had sight of the provision that would address this issue. It would not have sight of the contractual agreement between the stadium owners and the cities. 

Mr M Parker (2010 FIFA World Cup Organising Committee: Legal Adviser) said that agreements were being concluded with the stadium authorities. The agreements dealt with the clean stadium requirements. Vodacom would not have sight of the agreements because they were subject to confidentiality provisions. The period for the clean stadium requirement would start 15 days before the event and expire five days after the event. It was a very fixed period of time. This requirement was separate from the "protected event" status. There was a separate provision for naming rights so that the stadiums could be referred to in other names for a slightly longer period. The period was three months before the World Cup and would expire one week after the event. The idea behind was to deal with issues like the production of brochures relating to the stadiums by the Local Organising Committee (LOC).

The Chairperson said that some timeframes were not included in the Bills and this was a cause for concern. 

Mr Netshitenzhe said that the government had guaranteed to protect FIFA marks and the marks of its sponsors from 24 May 2006 until six months after the event. Nobody had a problem with this. There were also agreements between the host cities and FIFA. The Department would not want to tamper with such agreements. 

Mr Boshoff said that there was a submission that clause 5(b)(iv) created some uncertainty. The uncertainty was around zones surrounding or adjacent to the stadiums that had been identified as zone in which prescribed commercial activities by persons other than those identified by the LOC would not be allowed. Clause 5(b)(iv) should be read in conjunction with provision of clause 5(1)(a). Clause 5(1)(a) provided that the LOC should consult all other stakeholders. Clause 5(b)(iv) referred to "prescribed commercial activities" and this implied that regulation might be made for the purposes of the clause. Relevant stakeholders would include business that would suffer as a result of the legislation. The clause did not require that there should be consensus. There would also be consultation on regulations. There were checks and balances built in the provision. The LOC would not take decisions in a way that disregarded businesses in the designated areas or would force them to close. 

Mr Matlare said that there were two issues. The first was that an ordinary person's reading would raise a number of questions. A strategic business person who was a competitor in any of the arenas might read the provision as giving him or her an opportunity to lock out existing competitors. 

Mr Parker said that the host city agreements limited the conduct of commercial activities only to match days. It would be helpful to look closely at the clause and bring it closer to the intent of the host city agreements.

Mr Matlare said that Vodacom was making the submission not because it wanted to stop the event but to ensure that people did not grumble at the end of the day. It was important that people had been given ample opportunity to make comments and fix whatever might be wrong with the legislation. 

Mr Boshoff said that clause 7 of the Second 2010 Bill empowered the Minister to make regulations. There would be a need to consult broadly with all other stakeholders and there was no need to refer to them in the Bill. 

Mr Netshitenzhe said that the Minister of Sports would not be able to make a decision should there be no agreement with the other listed Ministers. Clause 7 was more about intergovernmental relations and the Ministers would have to reach an agreement. The normal legislative process would follow after an agreement had been reached and this included consultation with all stakeholders. Stakeholders could challenge any decision made should there be no consultation. 

The Chairperson said that Vodacom was saying there had been no consultation with other stakeholders. This was even clear given the list of stakeholders consulted as contained in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill. 

Mr Boshoff said that the memorandum only contained a list of bodies consulted up to a certain stage. There had been further consultation with additional bodies. The memorandum should be amended this to reflect such bodies and the bodies consulted by way of the hearing process. There would be extensive consultation on the regulations in the near future. 

Mr Matlare suggested that the words "and relevant stakeholders" should be added after "the Minister of Health" in clause 7. 

Mr Boshoff saw no harm in specifically providing that the decision should be made after consultation with relevant stakeholders. 

Mr Netshitenzhe agreed with the proposal provided that it would provide that the Minister of Sports would make the decision "in" consultation with other Ministers and "after" consultation with stakeholders. 

Mr Matlare said that lack of consultation might lead to a situation wherein a person who had not been consulted might seek recompense for any loss suffered. Clause 7(a) provided that regulations could be made regarding any matter that might or should be prescribed. This was as wide and deep as the ocean. It would allow the Ministers to do anything without recourse to this House. 

The Chairperson said that the Committee had decided to give such a wide scope due to the unintended consequences that might arise. 

Mr Boshoff proposed to add "related to any provision in this Act" in clause 7(a). This would mean that the Ministers would not be able to go beyond the legislation. 

The Chairperson thanked the presenters for the submissions and thereafter adjourned the meeting. The Committee would continue its deliberations on 24 July 2006. The Chairperson was convinced that the Committee would meet the deadline for adopting the Bills.