Standards Bill [B46B- 07]; National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Bill [B47B- 07]: Briefing

NCOP Economic and Business Development

18 March 2008
Chairperson: Mr JM Sibiya (ANC : Limpopo)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Trade and Industry (dti) explained that these two Bills seek to divide the functions currently performed by the South African Bureau of Standards between two separate bodies: the South African Bureau of Standards and the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications. The former would be responsible for the development of voluntary standards and maintenance and the provision of conformity assessment procedures, whilst the latter’s mandate would be to administer compulsory specifications. The presentation consisted of a summary of the Bill’s main points, relating to establishment and funding. Questions were wide-ranging but included references to specific incidents where standards were wanting and the role of the provinces and the functioning of the advisory board.

Meeting report

National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Bill and the Standards Bill
Dr Tshenge Demana, Chief Director: Enterprise and Industry Development, dti, explained that the two bills seek to split the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) into two separate bodies. Currently, the SABS is responsible for the promotion, development and maintenance of national standards, the provision of conformity assessment services and the administration of compulsory specifications (technical regulations) that originate largely from the dti’s regulation of products and processes. The combination of conformity assessment procedures to ensure compliance with technical requirements, whilst at the same regulating the product created a conflict of interest.

He stated that the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Bill would establish the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) which would be responsible for administration of compulsory specifications. The Standards Bill would provide for the continuation of the SABS, whose mandate will be the development of voluntary standards and maintenance and the provision of conformity assessment procedures.

Discussion
Mr W Douglas asked if the advisory forum would be able to enforce its recommendations.  If compulsory specifications are established, how do people in industry have a say? He further asked whether people in industry would be able to have their concerns heard.

Dr Demana responded that the basic idea of an advisory forum is to allow experts a place in which to discuss issues that they have expertise on. The rationale behind this is the possibility that board may consist of people who lack the relevant technical expertise. The advisory forum would consist of practitioners in the field who would know what is required. They would make recommendations to SABS, which would be recorded and where agencies fail to implement what is necessary, a record would exist, but at the same time, the board was not expected to simply implement their recommendations without question.

Mr N Mqungquthu (ANC, FS) asked if the board drafted rules and why it was not stated clearly in the NRCS Bill.

Dr Demana replied that the board may draft the constitution and rules for the advisory forum and may assist in giving secretarial support. This would occur where the forum did not wish to spend time drafting such documents. He felt it was operational enough for it to be left out of the Bill.

Mr Mqungquthu asked why it was left to the minister to appoint the board chairperson.

Ms Elsabe Steyn, Director: Enterprise and Industry Development, dti, replied that it was corporate governance protocol in the public sector for this to be left to the minister.

Mr D Gamede (ANC, KZN) commented that that the presentation was too technical and not easily accessible. He asked how the board would be fully representative and how this would be achieved.

Ms M Themba (ANC, Mpumalanga) expanded upon Gamede’s question and requested an elaboration with regard to gender and people with disabilities.

Dr Demana responded that it should be borne in mind that in composing the board, nominations were requested from members of the public as to suitable candidates. The board would then be appointed from the nominees and in that sense, they were somewhat limited, but the intention was to have it as broadly representative as possible. He noted that gender representation in other agencies of the dti had made good progress.

Ms Themba requested further details on the relation between the two bills.

Dr Demana replied that a part of the SABS was being excised and transformed into a stand-alone body.  These two bodies dealt with questions of technical infrastructure and would continue to work together.

Mr D Mkono (Eastern Cape) asked how South Africa compared to international standards.

Dr Demana replied that the SABS was a member of international standards bodies and participated in creating international standards.

Dr Geoff Visser, SABS Standards Division Executive, expanded on this, noting that SABS aligned itself with international standards. It was also important that South Africa could demonstrate that its products were on a par with international standards.

Ms Themba asked what the concerns raised by the Portfolio Committee had been.

Dr Demana replied that concerns were raised in response to two issues. Firstly, they felt that the proposed size of the board (10 -15) was too big. The revised bill allowed for a board size of 7 to 9 members.  Secondly, in some cases there was no national standard and if a national standard was not established, one has to specify what has to happen. It could happen in the development of a national standard, that a party could frustrate it intentionally, one must be able to go ahead in such an instance.

Ms Themba asked if there were any concerns in relation to health, environment and safety. She also wanted to know why standards were taken away from Minister of Education.

Dr Visser said that education standards would not be affected as they were not covered by this bill.

Ms Themba wanted to know why these two bodies were divided into standard-creating and regulatory entities, and why two bodies were regarded as optimally advantageous.

Dr Demana stated that currently, the SABS set standards and would do the testing after setting standards. A letter of authority was needed before a product could be sold, which came from SABS. The test facilities required meant that smaller players that did not have the resources of the SABS could not break into market. The separation of the regulator function would make it easier fro smaller players to enter market.

Ms Themba asked about the timeframe for public consultation on the bills.

Dr Demana replied that all relevant government departments and industries had been consulted, before the bills had come to Parliament. The timeframe now depended on what more needed to be considered by National Council of Provinces and was dependent on NCOP.

Ms Themba again asked if it would be optimally advantageous for the SABS to be split into two bodies.

Dr Visser noted that the SABS had been around for a number of years and had been doing a good job in establishing and maintaining national standards. He believed that separation would improve the situation, that national standards were a national asset and were developed to meet national needs. There was not exclusivity; any regulator at any level might use national standards. This was made clearer in separating the bodies.

Mr Sibiya referred to an incident where an export of cheese was barred from entering Europe, as it did not meet their standards. He stated that the exporters must have been aware of the standards to be met and wanted to know why they failed to meet those standards and the implications it had for South Africa’s monitoring procedures.

Dr Demana answered that sometimes products form developing countries were returned. This was a problem, but the people who tested the products must be competent to do so. He noted that sometimes, to save costs, they did not use an accredited facility to do testing, and then problems resulted in selling abroad. Sometimes it was not tested simply to save money.

Mr Sibiya asked how the SABS was funded.

Mr Moses Moeletsi, SABS Regulatory Division Executive, stated that the SABS itself was funded with income from the sale of standards. They also obtained income from testing and verification services and the levy

Mr Sibiya asked how the NCRS linked up with provinces.

Dr Visser replied that they did have various testing centres in provinces to do conformity testing, but the fact was that standards could be used at various levels, down to contract level.

Mr Moeletsi explained that products that the SABS suspected did not comply with provided standards were given an opportunity to conform to accepted standards. Should they fail to do so, the CEO’s directive was issued, which suspended their operation until they complied. This was also a criminal sanction, and should they continue to fail to comply, the SABS was empowered to “name and shame” offenders.

Ms Themba expressed concerns about legislated standards, citing an example of chicken carcasses injected with water and then frozen to make them look bigger. She wanted to know where standards came into this picture.

Mr Moeletsi responded that this question referred to legal metrology, which was covered by a different law. He did mention that some requirements were voluntary and that others were mandatory. He also noted there were other regulators which would be in a better position to answer this question rather than SABS.

Mr Mqungquthu requested further details on how the advisory forums would be appointed or elected.

Ms Steyn responded that the bill did not provide for remuneration and that participation was voluntary – but not the establishment thereof.

Mr Gamede referred to Clause 13 of the NCRS Bill, noting that some section contained the permissory “may” whilst other sections in the same clause contained the directive “must”. He considered this contradictory and requested an explanation.

A State Law Advisor responded that by reading Clause 13 in its entirety, the prvision did not allow the Minister to do anything without the recommendation of the board and ministerial discretion was thus limited.

Ms Themba asked that if meat was injected with a substance to improve colour, whether SABS would be able to assist.

Mr Moeletsi responded that this issue would fall under the aegis of a different regulatory body.

Mr Douglas expanded on the question posed by Ms Themba, and with reference to the recent spate of power outages. There could be a breakdown in the cold chain with the recent power outages. Meat would then go off quickly and he asked if there was some way that this could be addressed.

Mr Moeletsi responded that the dti was drafting a consumer protection law that would cover issues of this nature.

In reply to an ANC member asking if the provinces were also involved, Ms Steyn responded that implementation offices for the regulator would be in each province.

Mr Moeletsi elaborated, noting that SABS did not have offices in each province as this would be too costly. He further stated that they work closely with non-government organisations and provincial Consumer Affairs Offices in educating consumers.

Mr Sibiya thanked the visitors for their attendance and presentation. He adjourned the meeting.

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.

Share this page: