Electricity Regulation Amendment Bill: Negotiating Mandates; National Nuclear Regulator Amendment Bill: adoption

Meeting report

Electricity Regulation Amendment Bill: Negotiating Mandates
The Chairperson acknowledged the Legal Advisors from Parliament and the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE).

Eastern Cape Negotiating Mandate
The Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill with no proposed amendments.

Free State Negotiating Mandate
The Free State Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill with no proposed amendments.

Gauteng Negotiating Mandate
Ms Jeanie le Roux, Committee Researcher, presented the Gauteng Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill provided it included the following:

• The definition of ‘direct supply agreements’ must include generators and traders. The previous Amendment Bill which introduced the definition had excluded generators, traders and the system operator as customers.

Mr Gift Nhlapo, DMRE Chief Director: Nuclear Electricity and Gas Policy, said the DMRE had considered the proposal, but did not support it. This was not new as it was raised in the Portfolio Committee during deliberations, and it was not supported even then.

Ms Raksha Haricharan, State Law Advisor agreed with DMRE response.

Voting
Eastern Cape supported the amendment
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform.
Mpumalanga abstained.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

• The second Gauteng proposed amendment was that the definition of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) must be changed to identify forward looking plans for electricity generation which reflects national policy on electricity planning and specifies the amount of electricity that needs to be generated in that period. The current definition did not suit prevailing circumstances.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the proposal was also raised in the Portfolio Committee but not supported. The IRP represents government’s plan for the electricity sector, and it is imperative that it articulates the sources of technologies from which electricity may be generated, and this is in line with government’s policy for adopting the energy mix approach to energy supply sources. The ministerial determinations that were issued in terms of section 34, were issued in accordance with the IRP energy mix approach as determined.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan agreed with the Department’s response.

Voting
Eastern Cape supported the proposed amendment.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform.
Mpumalanga did not vote due to a network issue.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained

The amendment was not agreed to.

• The third Gauteng proposed amendment was that the definition ‘physical bilateral transaction’ should be changed to ‘national bilateral transaction’ or ‘public bilateral transaction’ because it has to do with the national interest of balancing the grid. The word ‘physical’ was misleading.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said DMRE does not support the proposed amendment. The matter was also dealt with in the Portfolio Committee process. The discussion concluded that the term was not misleading in terms of the relevant section. The comment on the reference to the 'Central Purchasing Agency' (CPA) was addressed. The final definition of 'physical bilateral transaction' in the current Amendment Bill removed the reference to CPA.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan agreed with DMRE’s response.

Voting
Eastern Cape supported.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform.
Mpumalanga abstained.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West abstained.
Western Cape abstained.
The amendment was not agreed to.

• The next comment dealt with the definition of 'regulated transaction'. It was submitted that the definition was misleading. This must be clarified.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the submission was also made during the Portfolio Committee process and it was not supported. The understanding that 'regulated transaction' are transactions that have their tariffs set by NERSA was correct. Registered generators who undertake transactions that require military approval or oversight will have their transactions overseen as regulated transactions. Section 15(4) provides an exception enabling licensees who have direct supply agreements to charge tariffs which have been agreed to in that agreement or tariffs that are determined in the competitive market.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan agreed with DMRE’s response.

Voting
Eastern Cape supported the proposed amendment.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform.
Mpumalanga abstained.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.
The amendment was not agreed to.

• The next Gauteng proposed amendment was on duties of the Regulator in section 4(1)(b)(i), that private bilateral transaction must be excluded to limit NERSA’s role in willing buyer-willing seller scenarios. It was further proposed that there must be a definition of 'private bilateral transaction'.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the submission was also made in the Portfolio Committee process and the first part of the proposed amendment where there was a proposed limit to NERSA’s role in willing buyer-willing seller scenarios was supported and an amendment was made to the B version of the the Bill. The second part of having a definition for 'private bilateral transaction' on visitor market transactions was not supported as it was not necessary to define private bilateral transactions as they were provided for in the Amendment Bill.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan agreed with DMRE’s response.

Voting
Eastern Cape supported the proposed amendments.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendments.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform.
Mpumalanga abstained.
Northern Cape abstained.
North West did not support the proposed amendments.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

• Gauteng's next proposed amendment was that section 9(1)(a) in the 2022 Draft Bill should remain in the 2023 Bill as introduced because it entrenches the need to register generation facilities as opposed to licensing them. It proposed that the previous section 9(4)(e) should be approved by the Regulator.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the proposal was not supported. It was not a new submission and the 2022 Draft Bill was not the Bill that was submitted to Parliament, and the content of the submission was already covered in the Bill. The application of Schedule 2 of the Act provides for the exemption from licensing and entrenches the registration of generation facilities. The current Bill also includes this. Section 19(4)(a) of the current Bill provides for third party access to the systems to be based on published tariffs which will be applicable to all customers who can access the system so it is not necessary to provide for the fees to be approved by the Regulator as published tariffs will be approved by the Regulator.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan agreed with DMRE’s response.

Voting
Eastern Cape supported the proposed amendments.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendments.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform.
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape abstained.
North West did not support the proposed amendments.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

• Gauteng's next proposed amendment on section 10(2)(g)stated: The terms ‘transmission power system’ and ‘distribution power system’ should be used throughout the section. Section 10(2)(g) states that an application for a licence must include evidence of compliance with any integrated resource plan applicable at that point in time or provide reasons for any deviation for the approval of the Minister. This section is in the principal Act, it was removed in the 2022 Draft Bill and has been reinstated in the 2023 Bill. This section should be deleted like it was in the 2022 Draft Bill. Evidence of compliance with the integrated resource plan may be a sticking point with NERSA in the licensing process. Historically NERSA has automatically deemed private sales of power to be non-compliant with the IRP, and Ministerial consent to deviation has been almost impossible to obtain in practice. It should be made clear that this applies to public procurement programmes. Private projects used to require ministerial deviations under this section so it is desirable that this section should not apply to private projects. This remains an issue because of NERSA's interpretation of this section: sales to municipalities and SOEs would need ministerial consent.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the proposal was noted but not supported. It was also made during the Portfolio Committee proceedings. It should not be deleted on the basis that it removes from the principal Act the power of the Minister to grant deviations from the IRP. The Bill provides that private generators that develop generation facilities for electricity by private customers do not require a Ministerial determination. The ability of the Minister to grant deviations under section 10(2)(g) remains essential. In a competitive market, this requirement is not applicable to market participants or transactions as it is not required that the Minister should provide deviation approvals. The provision on IRP compliance will be dealt with under the clause sequence of security of supply, ensuring that there is orderly development in achieving the energy mix objectives of the sector.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan supported DMRE’s response.

Voting
Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendments.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform.
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape abstained.
North West did not support the proposed amendments.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

• On section 14(1)(g) on conditions of licence, the Gauteng provincial legislature commented that NERSA should have the flexibility to exercise its own Regulatory oversight.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo noted DMRE’s response to the concerns raised during the Portfolio Committee process where there was a proposal to remove the section. The DMRE written response explained why the section should not be deleted.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan had nothing to add.

Voting
Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape abstained.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

• On section 31(1)(a) and (b) on powers of the licensee, Gauteng proposed that the sections should be reinstated because it is useful for a generator not to also have to apply for a trading licence. This would reduce red tape and the word ‘network’ should be defined.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the proposal was not supported. The 2022 Draft Bill that is referred to was not submitted to Parliament and was not the version that was worked on. The reinstatement of the provisions from the 2022 Draft Bill would contravene section 4 and 7 of the principal Act, which provide that no person can trade without a licence. Should an exemption for trading be considered under the proposal, it should be implemented in terms of section 8 and 9 of the principal Act to exempt it.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan agreed with DMRE.

Voting
Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape did not support the proposed amendment.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

• Section 34(1) on additional electricity generation capacity and electricity transmission infrastructure, states that "The Minister may, in the event of the failure of a market, or in the event of an emergency, or for the purposes of ensuring security of energy supply in the national interest, after consultation with the Regulator and the Minister of Finance, by notice in the
Gazette, make a determination. Gauteng proposed that ‘in consultation’ and not ‘after consultation’ should be used to ensure that the appropriate oversight is exercised by NERSA.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the proposal was also submitted previously and was not supported. The experience of the court cases that have taken place on interpretation of the applicability of the section affirmed that where there has been no concurrence because the provision states ‘must be done in consultation with’, the Minister cannot implement this function. The intention of section 24(1) is to avoid the unintended consequences which almost disable the Minister from performing the function. The Minister has the responsibility to ensure the security of supply.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan agreed with DMRE’s response.

Voting
Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

• On section 34(B)(3)(c)(i), Gauteng requested that there should be clarity on the new scope of the provision: "The different types of markets necessary to ensure effective and secure operation of the industry including both physical and financial transactions between power market participants in the appropriate timescales, to enable the market transactions and regulated transactions".

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the provision refers to the different markets that are necessary to ensure the effective operation of the industry including both physical and financial transactions. It is a straightforward provision that does not require clarity.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan had nothing to add.

Voting
Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape abstained.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

• On section 34B(1) on Transmission System Operator (TSO) functions, Gauteng asked for clarity why the TSO functions were not retained in the 2023 Amendment Bill.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the concern raised was addressed because the TSO function of developing the transmission development plan was inserted as section 34B(1)(e) and the function of forecasting and dispatch scheduling was inserted as section 34B(2)(c) in the 2023 Amendment Bill. The reason the determination of the TSO functions seem not clearly detailed was because the 2022 Draft Bill went beyond the scope of legislative drafting standards and provided for full operational details of a function instead of covering high-level principles. As the functions were incorporated in the 2023 Amendment Bill, DMRE did not support the proposed amendment.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan agreed with DMRE’s response.

Voting
Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape abstained.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

On section 34(a)(i) of the 2022 Draft Bill, Gauteng said it was expressly asserted that the Minister is responsible for compiling the IRP and revising it every three years or more frequently if necessary and to provide substantive procedural guidelines for the development of the IRP. This proposal helped clarify the role, composition and implementation of the IRP and it was unclear why the amendments were not included in the 2023 Amendment Bill.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the proposal was noted but it was not supported. It had been raised previously. The National Energy Act dealt with the IRP and how it must be developed and the hierarchy. It is not necessary to describe the development of the IRP in the Amendment Bill.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan agreed with DMRE’s response.

Voting
Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.
The amendment was not agreed to.

• Gauteng said that the 2022 Draft Bill gave the Minister several powers and functions in section 34(2)(a) to (e). It was unclear why the sections were deleted in the 2023 Amendment Bill.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the submission was noted but not supported because the powers and functions are covered in section 34 of the current Bill.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan had nothing to add.

Voting
Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

• In section 34(1)(b) on transmission infrastructure, Gauteng proposed that the powers and functions of the Minister be transferred to the National Transmission Company South Africa SOC Limited, as the entity is best placed to perform these functions.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the proposal was not supported because the Bill gives the Transmission System Operator functions that will be performed by the National Transmission Company South Africa during the transition period until government establishes the TSO. In the establishing of the TSO, the establishing investigation will determine where the function will finally be placed.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan had no additional comments

Voting
Eastern Cape supported the proposed amendment.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

• Section 34(1)(e) of the principal Act states that the Minister may, in consultation with the Regulator 'require that new generation capacity must be established through a tendering procedure which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.' This provision has been deleted in the Bill. It should be reinstated as it is important that any tendering procedure for the procurement of electricity, new generation capacity or infrastructure is established through a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said the proposal was not supported as section 34 determinations were related to the 2020 Electricity Regulations on New Generation Capacity which provides for the internal procurement process that implements the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan had no additional comments.

Voting
Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

• On general amendments, Gauteng proposed that changes in electricity regulations should not inadvertently disadvantage townships or discriminate against certain areas in terms of access to reliable and affordable electricity. It is necessary to ensure equitable distribution of benefits for any competitive electricity market that emerges because of the Bill. Enterprise support initiatives include provision for funding allocation eligibility criteria for small, medium, and micro enterprises (SMMEs) and accountability mechanisms for administration of funds. Legal considerations could involve assessing the impact of the electricity market reforms on SMMEs, ensuring Regulatory changes do not unduly burden or disadvantage these enterprises.

Legal protection for SMMEs such as a safeguards against unfair practices by electricity providers might also be relevant. Noting Mediation and Dispute Resolution mechanisms in the Bill, regulations governing dispute resolution and penalties procedures for violations by electricity providers to ensure that consumers are adequately protected in the context of the transitioning electricity market. This might involve strengthening consumer rights in electricity contracts, establishing mechanisms for resolving disputes on electricity services and incurring penalties for offences such as electricity theft or vandalism. Additionally, legal safeguards might be necessary to prevent anti-competitive behaviour or abuse of market power by electricity providers in a more open and competitive market environment.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo noted the comments and said most of them did not require any amendments to be made to the Amendment Bill as they were proposals and suggestions that could be implemented through secondary instruments. The Bill does cover some of the areas mentioned, including the establishment of a tribunal.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan agreed with DMRE.

Voting
Mr Asgar Bawa, Committee Secretary, suggested that Members vote on each point that was raised since there were many suggestions.

Voting on point 1:
Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

Voting on point 2:
Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

Voting on point 3:
Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

Voting on point 4:

Eastern Cape abstained.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN abstained.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

KZN Negotiating Mandate
Ms le Roux presented this mandate stating that the KZN Provincial Legislature supported the Bill with a few amendments. The first proposed amendment is that there must be a link between the Second-Hand Goods Act of 2009 on the sale of second hand electricity infrastructure to second-hand goods dealers, scrap yards, and pawn brokers. The second proposed amendment is to make it an offence in section 35B(1) to illegally connect electricity to households as it does not specifically cover this offence and possibly left it to municipal by-laws.

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo noted the proposals, but they were not supported. The first proposal to link the Second-Hand Goods Act was deliberated with the Portfolio Committee and Parliamentary Legal Advisors and it was agreed that the provision is wide enough to include circumstances covered under the Second-Hand Goods Act. The second proposal was also deliberated, and it was left out because it is covered under reticulation matters that municipalities have jurisdiction to deal with and it was covered under the applicable municipal by-laws.

State Law Advisor’s response
Ms Haricharan agreed with DMRE.

Voting:
Point A
Eastern Cape was not on the platform.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng supported the proposed amendment.
KZN supported the proposed amendment.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

Point B
Eastern Cape was not on the platform.
Free State abstained.
Gauteng abstained.
KZN supported the proposed amendment.
Limpopo was not on the platform
Mpumalanga was not on the platform.
Northern Cape was not on the platform.
North West did not support the proposed amendment.
Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not agreed to.

Mpumalanga Negotiating Mandate
Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill with no proposed amendments.

Northern Cape Negotiating Mandate
The Northern Cape Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill subject to consideration of the proposed amendments.

Mr Bawa said he had spoken with the Northern Cape Legislature and had an email to confirm that it did not have any proposed amendments.

Members agreed to continue.

North West Negotiating Mandate
The North West Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill with no proposed amendments.

Ms T Mamorobela (ANC, Limpopo) apologised for being in and out of the meeting, noting that she was at a by-elections conference.

The Chairperson said the remainder of the meeting would be less than 30 minutes and urged her to attend.

[Short five-minute break]

National Nuclear Regulator Amendment Bill
The Committee Secretary, Mr Bawa, said the Committee received two or three public submissions and the researchers sent their report on these submissions to Committee members and the submissions were also sent to the Department. The engagement on the Bill would now be between the Committee, the Department and the Legal Advisors. Thereafter, the Committee would vote on whether to support or not support the Bill. As this is a Section 75 Bill (not affecting the provinces), the voting would be different from the Section 76 Bill (affecting the provinces) voting. It would be done according to the number of Committee members present in the meeting rather than according to province.

The Committee researcher, Ms Le Roux, went through the public submissions on the Amendment Bill.

DMRE’s response
Mr Nhlapo said the reference made to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) glossary and the submission that the Bill's terms and concepts were not aligned, was not accurate. The IAEA glossary is a guidance document to IAEA member states when they draft their documents. It is always subject to national laws and how the national environment interprets the principles. The definitions were aligned with the South African national scenario and prevailing conditions and circumstances. All the amendments proposed or raised were only grammatical.

The comment that there was no alignment with legal standards was incorrect and unfounded because the Bill went through a vetting process via the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor (OCSLA) before it went to Parliament. If there were illegalities in the Bill, they would have been picked up through the vetting process. The Department does not agree that a legal opinion should be obtained because when OCSLA does the vetting of the Bill, it issues a legal opinion on the Bill. If something is not right, the Bill will not be signed off.

State Law Advisor response
Ms Lisa Naidoo, State Law Advisor, agreed with the Department response, noting that the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor vetted the Bill for constitutionality and conformity with drafting practices and it was aligned.

Parliamentary Legal Advisor response
Ms Buyiseka Mtati, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, agreed with DMRE and State Law Advisor, noting that the Bill went through legal vetting and the Bill is constitutional.

Discussion
Mr M Nhanha (DA, Eastern Cape) said the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor sounded confident that the Bill can pass constitutional muster based on its vetting. Can OCSLA recall the number of Bills that could not muster constitutional scrutiny after being passed by Parliament despite them having undergone this vetting process?

DMRE response
Mr Nhlapo said that those that had problems were minor in comparison to the multiple Bills that do get passed.

State Law Advisor response
Ms Naidoo said according to her experience, they ensure that the Bills are aligned to the Constitution and are drafted in terms of the correct legal prescripts. After the introduction of a Bill, it goes to the Portfolio Committees and the relevant Select Committee. The State Law and Parliamentary Legal Advisors give advice to the Committees on the constitutionality of the Bill if there are any changes introduced in the Bill, but they do not advice on policy. The Committee decides whether to accept the legal advice or to proceed.

National Nuclear Regulator Amendment Bill: voting
Mr Bawa explained the section 75 voting process as follows:
When a Bill is to be voted on in terms of section 75 of the Constitution, at least one third of the members of the Committee must be present before a vote can be taken. The question is decided on by a majority of the votes cast. If there is an equal number of votes on each side of the question, the Chairperson must cast a deciding vote in addition to his vote as an ordinary member.

Mr Nhanha voted in favour of the Bill.
Ms N Ndongeni (ANC, Eastern Cape) voted in favour of the Bill.
Mr I Ntsube (ANC, Free State) voted in favour of the Bill.
Mr A De Bruyn (FF+, Free State) voted in favour of the Bill.
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC, Gauteng) voted in favour of the Bill.
Ms L Bebee (ANC, KZN) voted in favour of the Bill.
Ms Mamorobela voted in favour of the Bill.
Mr N Maneng (ANC, Northern Cape)voted in favour of the Bill.
The Chairperson voted in favour of the Bill.
Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) voted in favour of the Bill.

In a unanimous decision, the Committee voted in support of the Bill.

Mr Bawa said the Committee Report on the Bill would be adopted at the next meeting.

The Chairperson thanked DMRE, the State Law Advisor and the Parliamentary Legal Advisors for their participation.

The previous meeting minutes were adopted.

The Chairperson thanked Members for attending and participating in the meeting despite the busy election period and the meeting was adjourned.