The Secretary to Parliament

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Attention: Mr. Nkosekhaya Lala

Dear Mr. Lala,

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Public Hearing scheduled for 16 October 2002. Kindly replace our previous submission of 16 September 2002 with this one.

Denel wishes to make the following comments regarding the Bill:

This Bill is a major improvement on the current Explosives Act. The armaments industry however is very different in many aspects from the commercial explosives industry. This Bill is specifically written to regulate the commercial explosives industry. Some sections are therefore impractical to implement by the armaments industry.

The overlapping between the proposed Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) Explosives Regulations and the Explosives Bill is creating confusion, particularly in respect of the separation of responsibilities between the SAPS and the Department of Labour. The Department of Labour claims the mandate for occupational explosives safety, while the SAPS is mandated to ensure explosives security. In view of the aforementioned it is unclear why several provisions of the Explosives Bill is devoted to occupational explosives safety issues.

Regarding sections 12, 13, 15 and 17 it is unclear whether the permits/licences/certificates are required in addition to the licences issued by the Department of Labour.

Regarding section 5 safety aspects can also be inspected. It is uncertain whether the term safety refers to national safety or occupational safety or both.

Regarding section 8(1) of the Bill, the control authority in respect of prescriptions and safe procedures for the destruction of explosives is unclear.

Definitions and formats for licence, permit, certificate and authorization should be specified.

This section should be renamed "Destruction of forfeited explosives." Section 8(3) is considered to be too onerous in respect of the manufacturer, as it always places the onus of proof on the manufacturer. We are concerned that general safe destruction procedures may not directly apply to military products and suggests that such procedures be compiled in consultation with the owner. Furthermore, if explosives are confiscated and removed from the property of the owner he/she has no more control over the safe disposal thereof, and cannot be held liable.

Regarding the taking of bodily samples, as provided for in terms of section 9(3), the obtaining of a court order to order the taking of such samples should be included as a prerequisite.

This section is not applicable to licenced/authorized premises.

This section is not applicable to manufacturers. It should be made clear that "use" should include activities such as blasting. Otherwise it is proposed that provision is made for the delegation of the supervisory responsibilities of the licence/permit holder.

Markings as required in terms of the Bill may be in conflict with the marking requirements of clients. It should therefore be possible to waive or modify marking requirements under certain circumstances.

The requirement for packaging samples to be submitted to the Chief Inspector of Explosives (CIE) is impractical and cannot be complied with by the armaments industry.

It is impractical to submit specimens of all explosives. It is a matter of concern that trade secrets could not be guaranteed. The taking of samples from completed products that contain explosives, e.g. rocket motors or warheads, is also not practically executable.

We feel this section is unfair and maybe unconstitutional.

This section could not be applicable to the licence/permit/certificate holder.

The penalties are too harsh. Sections 10(6) and 25 implicates that a Cafe owner (the old lady at the corner) may go to jail for 15 years (without the option of a fine) if a packet of crackers is found in her shop.

The term "possess" must be defined. If it includes factory workers working with explosives, this section is unfair and impractical.

We trust that the above comments will be of assistance in the consideration of the Bill.

Please contact the undersigned if further information or clarification is required.

Cc: LJ Dirker, T Swiegelaar