BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO SOUTH AFRICA

25 Du Toit Street

Stellenbosch 7600

P.O. Box 631

Cape Town 8000

 

13 March 2008

 

Mr James Ngculu, MP

The Chairperson

Portfolio Committee on Health House of Assembly

 

 

Dear Sir

 

TOBACCO PRODUCTS CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 7 OF 2008

With regard to the introduction of the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill 7 of 2008, we wish to thank you for your assertion at the informal briefing on Tuesday, 11 March 2008, that there is a need for this proposed legislation to be thoroughly considered.

 

As the largest tobacco manufacturer in South Africa, we feel compelled to formally convey to you our views on the process thus far. Having reviewed and experienced the proceedings of the past week in relation to this bill, we have no alternative but to fully support the sentiments expressed by the industry in the letter dated 13 March 2008 to yourself from Mr Michael Evans of Webber Wentzel.

 

In addition, we wish to raise the following concerns that indicate a serious flaw in the procedure that has been followed in an attempt by the Department of Health to "fast track" this proposed legislation which presents the real risk of this process being exclusionary. We believe that this fundamentally compromises the integrity of Parliament and threatens the-Constitutionally required public participation process.

 

  1. Contrary to normal practice, the advertisement calling for public participation appeared in only one national newspaper, the Sunday Times. Failure to publish in media that reach non-English speaking members of the public effectively restricts the public participation process.

 

2.       At the briefing it was very evident that the Portfolio Committee members present had neither seen the advert nor had indeed been consulted prior to its publication and yet the advert purports to have been placed by the Portfolio Committee on Health and issued by yourself. Furthermore, it was also evident that members of the committee had not had sight of the bill for which they were calling for comment from members of the public. Again, we submit that this is contrary to the Rules of the National Assembly and may undermine the credibility of the role of the Portfolio Committee on Health the Parliamentary legislative process in general.

 

 

  1. Despite the fact that the advertisement called for submissions and advised of the deadline the bill itself, as of the date of this letter, has still not been published in the Government Gazette and is therefore not accessible to members of the public. We view this as critical given that there are effectively only four working days remaining for submissions to be made which makes it impossible for members of the public to review, evaluate and submit comments timeously.

 

  1. Furthermore, despite notification or me date on which public hearings will be held, the advert fails to provide any detail of how and where interested parties should lodge applications to participate in these hearings.

 

  1. We wish to place on record that the Department of Health’s contention that there has been any consultation with British American Tobacco with regard to the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill 7 of 2008 is false. We have no option but to view this claim as supporting their stated objective to “fast track” the bill.

 

 

  1. Further, the claim that the bill has been in the public domain and is merely the second part of the "split bill" presented in 2006 is also misleading. The so-called "2006 bill" was never published. Only one section of this so called "2006 bill" that was later known as the Section 75 bill was published and made available for comment. To allege that this current bill is business-as-usual is at worst, mischievous, and at best, mendacious. If, however, this contention refers to the 2003 bill, it is unacceptable to expect Parliament and members of the public to rely on a process that happened nearly five years ago. Moreover, there have been fundamental changes to the 2003 bill, which makes it appropriate to give this bill its due consideration.

 

           

We raise these concerns most strongly to support Parliament and the Portfolio Committee in particular in its obligation of ensuring a fair, inclusive and transparent legislative process. We therefore urge you to exercise your authority to design a fair, reasonable and realistic timeframe that will allow full participation by all affected stakeholders.

 

We trust that you will take our views into consideration as you deliberate on the way forward.

 

We remain, as always, available at your convenience to engage on this and other matters relating to our business.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Fay Kajee

Director Corporate and Regulatory Affairs