Human Sciences Research Council(HSRC) Bill [B16-2007]: Department briefing
Science, Technology and Innovation
12 June 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
12 June 2007
HUMAN SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL(HSRC) BILL [B16-2007]: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING
Acting Chairperson: Ms F Mahomed (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Human Sciences Research
Council Draft Bill [B16-2007]
Human Sciences
Research Council Bill presentation
Minutes of Meetings 13, 20, 27 February, 6, 13 and 27 March, and 15 and 22 May
2007
Audio Recording of
the Meeting
SUMMARY
The Department of Science and Technology presented a summary of the HSRC
Bill. It was noted that the whole Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) Bill,
which was essentially replacing the old Act bring it in line with the current
thinking and place stronger focus on the public purpose of the Council. The
Department outlined and explained the purpose and clauses of the Bill. It noted
that the Council would promote human science research of the highest quality,
to improve understanding of social conditions, and to stress engagement with
Africa and the rest of the world. It would thus respond to the needs of
vulnerable and marginalised groups and develop new sets of data to underpin
research. The composition of the Board, appointment of the Board and CEO, secondment,
intellectual property rights and funding were explained.
Members asked whether there was a need for further consultation, discussed
appointments of Board members and staff, questioned the possibility of
appointing foreigners, the staff mobility, the secondment procedures and the
gender balance of the Council. Further questions were asked on the vulnerable
groups, the consultation with the House of Traditional Leaders, traditional
knowledge systems and information, the intellectual property rights, and the
scope of the regulations. Members urged the need to address global warming
issues, asked whether the Bill would address the Millennium Development Goals,
and said there was a need to look again at the definition of disadvantaged
communities in the Bill. The Department confirmed that it would examine those
areas and that the Bill would be discussed again once public comments were
received.
The Committee approved the Report on the DST business strategies and budget for
2007/08, and also confirmed various Minutes of meetings. The Minutes of 27
February were to stand over for later discussion.
MINUTES
Human Sciences Research Council Bill (the Bill): Briefing by Department of
Science and Technology (DST)
Ms Anusha Lucen, Deputy Director General, Department of Science and
Technology, presented a summary of the Human Sciences Research Council Bill.
The HSRC was established through the Human Sciences Research Act, No 23 of 1968
. DST had recently commenced an exercise to harmonise legislation, and Cabinet
suggested that the Act be reviewed to bring it in line with the current state
of affairs, and to put stronger focus on the public purpose approach of the
HSRC and therefore broaden its activities in the future. The process of the
Bill was fully set out, with a note of who was consulted. The Bill was
published for comment o n 25 May 2007 and the closing date for comment was 1
June. The preamble set out the necessity to promote human science research of
the highest quality, to improve understanding of social conditions, and to
stress engagement with Africa and the rest of the world. The objects of the
Council were set out, broadly to initiate, undertake and foster basic research
and applied research, to inform the making and monitoring of policy and to evaluate
the implementation, to stimulate public debate and dissemination of research
and to build research capacity and infrastructure. It would thus respond to the
needs of vulnerable and marginalised groups and develop new sets of data to
underpin research. It could also conduct research for any person or
organisation. The Board composition was explained, and it was stressed that
there would also be a governance committee. A CEO would be appointed with
approval of the Minister, for a five-year term, renewable for one further
period of five years. Employees of the Council would be appointed by the CEO,
with the Board approving the terms and conditions. It was possible for State
employees to be seconded to the Council.
Ms Lucen noted that the intellectual property (IP) rights in respect of any
invention or design by employees would vest in the Council, and the Council
would then award financial participation in the proceeds derived from such
invention at a prescribed percentage. The Board would be funded by parliament,
fees, royalties, donations and revenue from other sources. The Bill further
provided for the making of regulations on any matter prescribed, and interim
measures for governance.
Discussion
Mr J Blanche (DA)asked the Department if other organisations should be
invited to comment on the Bill.
Mr M Matsemela (ANC) requested the Department to elaborate on inputs received
from institutions and also asked if the Department had already incorporated
those inputs.
Ms Lucen informed the committee that consultations for the Bill started as far
back as 2002. The Bill was also posted on the website and received a lot of
comments, and these had been integrated into the earlier draft of Bill. The
Department felt that consultation had been quite extensive and therefore
sufficient. When the Department took the strategic position to parliament, it
was asked to go back for more consultations and particularly, to consult the
Presidency. She informed the Committee that the process for public hearings was
currently under way
Mr Matsemela also requested the Department to take the Committee through areas
that may need particular interventions.
Mr Matsemela also requested clarification on the difference between the Board
and the Minister recommending the CEO.
Ms B Ngcobo (ANC) requested the Department to elaborate on who would choose the
panel of experts, and any other laws relating to the Bill. Furthermore, she
asked about the vulnerable groups with whom the Department worked. She asked
about the gender balance in the Department. She further asked the Department if
it was experiencing any mobility out of the institution resulting in a shortage
of staff.
Ms Lucen further informed the Committee that because there was little feedback
from the Board, the governance committee was introduced. The period of office
of the CEO as set out in the legislation, was quite short, and the Department
had felt that five years was the minimum. With regard to the objects of
Council, she said that there were significant discussions around the role HSRC
played in policy making as well as monitoring and evaluation of policy
implementation. As an example, she alluded to what would happen in a case where
the CEO might be on long leave of absence.. As far as gender representation was
concerned, this must be considered.
Mr Puseletso Loselo, Manager, Legal Service, DST added in regard to the
appointment of the CEO, that Clause 10 clarified that the Board may decide on
the appointment of a CEO with the approval of the Minister.
Prof J Mohamed (ANC) asked, what had motivated the changes in regard to the
transfer and secondment of staff, and whether the staff members would have the
opportunity to consent to their movement. He feared that secondment done by the
Council and the Minister did not have enough safeguards for the rights of the
individual. He also wondered why nothing was included about the rights of the
individuals on their own research and asked if the HSRC would own all research
done by employees as its property.
Ms Lucen said that the current legislation constrained the HSRC to hiring
someone from within, and this needed to be made broader in order to bring in
outside people with particular skills. Ms Lucen expressed that there was a need
to encourage the mobility of researchers between government and HSRC or other
research institutions to encourage writing and publishing. As far as transfer
and secondment of staff was concerned, Clause 13 of the Bill stated that this
could not be done without the consent of the person concerned and the receiving
party. The clause also stated that rights and benefits of the employee must not
be affected by the secondment.
Ms Lucen explained in regard to intellectual property that the Intellectual
Property Rights clauses of the Bill noted that these would be vested in the
Council, but that if the IP rights were registered in South Africa, then the
employee would be entitled to financial incentives defined by the regulations.
Prof J Mohamed (ANC) queried whether the Minister had been advised about the
utilisation of research, and if the Minister also held the overall power in
terms of the Bill.
Mr P Maloyi (ANC) asked the State Law Advisors if the Bill had been referred to
the House of Traditional Leaders, and whether the regulations were in line with
current issues in Parliament and the House of traditional leaders in regard to
indigenous knowledge.
The State Law Advisor representative explained the referral to the Traditional
Leaders House. She informed the Committee that the Bill would only refer to this
where Customary Law is mentioned. Clause 14 permitted referral to the House of
Traditional Leaders where subsection tried to protect the work of traditional
customs.
Mr Puseletso Loselo, Manager, Legal Service, DST explained that the inclusion
of customary law and knowledge clauses in the Bill meant that there should be
consultations with the House of Traditional Leaders. Clause 14 made mention of
indigenous knowledge, and also provided that proper protection and compensation
would need to be awarded in matters derived from traditional knowledge.
Mr S Dithebe (ANC) expressed that the 5-year period for the Board Members was
appropriate as they would have to familiarise themselves with the environment.
Mr Blanche urged the committee to address issues of Global Warming, stating
that South Africa could be falling behind in addressing these issues. He
requested the Committee and the Department if the size of the Board had been
taken into account to ensure that it was sufficient to look at these major problems.
He requested the Committee to consider having some expertise from outside to
sit on that board, even if for two years.
Ms Lucen responded that in regard to global warming issues, the Board could
form, redesign or dissolve committees, and this was one way to address
particular problems such as that highlighted by Mr Blanche.
Mrs B Ncgobo requested the Department to look at the needs of the vulnerable in
the Bill. She also asked if the Bill would address relevant areas of the
Millennium Development Goals.
Mr Simphiwe Mini, Chief Director, DST explained that the purpose and wording of
the Bill would also meet the targets set by the Millennium Development Goals.
Ms Lucen informed the Committee that the reason for proposing an entire new
Bill was that the numerous amendments that would otherwise have been required
would make the process cumbersome, and that the new Bill was better able to
cater for the new developments and new legislation. A panel of experts had
recommended a complete overhaul.
Mr Loselo added that regulations framed under the Act, once passed, would be
subordinate legislation delegated to the Minister, but that the general rules
of interpretation meant that the Minister could not come up with anything that
contradicting the Act, nor make new provisions. The regulations related to
implementation of the Act. With regards to removal of a Board Member, for
instance, there was a need to define reasonable grounds for removal, as these
would not be specified in the Act.
Mr Blanche expressed that limiting Board Membership to South Africans only was
too limiting, and he asked if any consideration had been given to being able to
appoint foreigners to the Board.
Ms Lucen responded that the Preamble to the Bill stated the need for engagement
with people within Africa. It could be possible to bring in someone from
Africa.
Ms Leselo informed the Committee that the DST would look at defining
‘reasonable grounds’ in the regulations. She also informed the Committee that
foreigners were not permitted to be on the Board, but were not disqualified
from serving on sub committees.
Prof Mohamed requested the Department once again to clarify ownership of
intellectual property rights.
Mr Mini advised that the Intellectual Property clause of the Bill stated that
the ownership of the designs would vest in the Council and that the percentage
of what an individual employee might be entitled for their registered research
would be described in the regulations.
Ms Ncgobo requested clarification on the methodology used for passing
information on to traditional leaders.
Ms Ncgobo asked how HSRC got its funding.
Ms Lucen informed the Committee that the Bill did address the funding
conditions.
The Acting Chairperson requested explanation on how South Africa compared in
Research & Development to the international community. She also advised the
Department that there was a need to be vigilant in panning out what
marginalised communities and vulnerable groups such as the disabled meant and
to look at their gender.
Ms Lucen said that Clause 3 provided the broad framework in terms of the
vulnerable and the marginalised, but thanked the Committee for its advice,
which the Department would take into consideration.
The Acting Chairperson asked also whether the governance committee was a
complementary committee and why they were created.
The Acting Chairperson expressed her observation that there was mention of
indigenous knowledge in the Bill, yet the traditional leaders had not been
consulted.
Ms Lucen said that most of the work in the indigenous knowledge systems came
from the community. The Interfaith Community was also consulted in the process.
The Acting Chairperson concluded that there was a need to look at the
definitions of disadvantaged communities in the Bill and also to consider the
inclusion of experts from abroad.
The Bill would be debated further after the public comments had been received.
Other Committee business
The Committee members deliberated on and approved the Report on Department of
Science and Technology and its Entities on its Business Strategies for 2007/08
(Budget and Strategic Plans).
The Committee also adopted the minutes dated 13 and 20 of February, 13 and 27
of March, and 15 and 22 of May 2007. The Committee would consider the Minutes
of February 27 in its next meeting as the statement containing the word
‘amnesty’ was still contested.
The meeting was adjourned
Audio
No related
Documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.