2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill: deliberations

SPORT AND RECREATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
12 June 2006
2010 FIFA WORLD CUP SOUTH AFRICA SPECIAL MEASURES BILL: DELIBERATIONS

Chairperson: Mr B Komphela (ANC)

Documents handed out:
2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B13-2006]

SUMMARY
Deputy Minister Oosthuizen apologised for his inability to attend the previous meeting.  The 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill was the product of seventeen months’ consultation with a wide range of government departments and other role-players as well as interaction with FIFA.  A decision was still to be taken on whether it would be dealt with under Section 75 or 76 of the Constitution. This had much to do with the question of liquor licences and distribution.  Inputs from the Department of Provincial and Local Government and the Rainbow Junction Development Company had only been submitted after the initial Bill had been submitted to Cabinet.

Financial measures would be dealt with separately by Treasury. FIFA’s official sponsors would be protected.  This could be for a month after the event under current legislation, but the Bill would provide for an indefinite period.  Members felt that this was unacceptable.  This protection would also extend to the Confederations Cup, to be held during 2009.  This could have implications on issues such as the renaming of stadiums.  There might also be restrictions on advertising and commercial activity within the immediate area of venues. 

Stadium lease agreements would determine issues such as accessibility to food vendors.  These agreements would also have to address the issue of compensation to traders in the proximity of venues whose activities might be restricted or suspended during the tournament.

The South African Police Service explained the rationale behind the clauses they had contributed to the Bill.  Assistance would be given by some foreign services in specialised areas, but SAPS would be fully in charge of all security arrangements.  There was also discussion on the definition of a ‘spectator’ as used in the Bill.

The Department of Sport and Recreation explained various important clauses in the Bill. Members asked various questions such as the current status of state financial guarantees to host the event, the involvement of relevant line function departments, how stadiums would be declared, the process to prepare all hosting cities for the event, the distribution of liquor and the impact on local vendors, how sales to spectators could be controlled and the importation of medicines and related substances to be used by accredited personnel during the event.

MINUTES
The Chairperson said that the committee had been briefed on the legal basis for the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill at their meeting on the previous Friday.  The Department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA) had still needed to provide information on some issues, and it would not have proper for the committee to continue dealing with the Bill until this information had been provided.  He was pleased to see Deputy Minister Gert Oosthuizen present, accompanied by both the Directors-General of SRSA and the 2010 Unit.  Some polite but serious discussion was needed, as the Deputy Minister would take some flak on behalf of Parliament.

The Deputy Minister welcomed the proactive measures taken by the Committee to deal with the Bill, which was an overarching framework.  He apologised for not being available on Friday, although he had thought that his legal advisor was the best placed to assist the Committee.  The process of formulating the Bill had started seventeen months previously, and had been the product of all government departments, national federations, SASCOC (South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee) and provincial sports departments.  It was a lengthy process.  SRSA’s mandate was to oversee the compliance of those departments which were responsible for government guarantees. 

He said that decisions had been made to repeal, redraft or amend existing legislation, or to include these in the 2010 Bill.  Some of the departments consulted had thought that existing legislation was sufficient.  It had been a dynamic process.  Wider consultation had also been needed, including consultation with FIFA.  Two legal workshops had been arranged with FIFA, and this body had needed some time to consider issues raised.  For this reason, the original deadline for the introduction of the Bill had been shifted to 31 July.

SRSA had accommodated all requests, the Deputy Minister said.  The department had followed up with other departments which had been slow to deliver their inputs.  The Bill had to go to the state legal advisors before being considered by Cabinet, who then returned it to the legal advisors.  The cut-off date for this procedure was the end of March 2006.  Subsequent to this, the Rainbow Junction Development Company had made a submission in April.  It was totally impossible to include this in the Bill.  There had also been requests from the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG).

Deputy Minister Oosthuizen said that as the process unfolded, lessons would be learnt from Germany and from FIFA advisors.  This would lead to necessary amendments to the legislation.  He was comfortable with the extent of the consultation process.  There were two legs to the legislation.  This Bill was one, and the other input would be from National Treasury.  Theirs would be on financial matters, and would probably lead to the formation of a financial committee.  He was comfortable that the Bill was the result of all inputs.

He said that SRSA had been advised by the state legal advisors had interpreted the Bill as falling under Section 75.  A decision was awaited from Parliament.

He said that the process had been followed throughout, and the Bill should be ‘good legislation’.

Mr C Frolick (ANC) asked how profound the submission from DPLG had been.  The Bill should deal with guarantees.  He felt that the section of the Bill regarding liquor licences would determine whether it should be handled under Section 75 or 76.  The liquor boards had dealt with these matters previously.  Here, national law would be impacting on provincial affairs.  Thirdly, he said that a financial time frame was needed.  The World Cup financial needs had to be made clear, and there was a joint responsibility.

Mr E Lucas (IFP) asked if there had been consultation with business in such matters as liquor regulations.  He asked if these would be reviewed under money matters.

Deputy Minister Oosthuizen replied that the liquor licensing was an issue, and this was the reason why the state legal advisor had suggested a Section 75 tabling.  He had no problem whichever way it was tagged.  It was not a decision for the Minister or SRSA, and would come from consultation.

He said he would leave the discussion of the financial bill to his legal services representative.

On the question of business interests, the main concern was ambush marketing.  FIFA had major sponsors, and clean venues would have to be provided.  He noted that the official sponsors were getting good mileage in Germany.  The only beer on sale at stadiums and public viewing spaces was the beer American Budweisser, while the official car was Hyundai.  Local business had not been consulted, as FIFA’s requirements for their sponsors would have to be met.

Mr G Boshoff (Legal Services, SRSA) said that a financial measures bill had been proposed, but Treasury had decided to withdraw this.  Mr Mansoor Parker of the Local Organising Committee (LOC) legal department had attended a meeting where it was decided that Treasury would rather amend existing Acts.  He said that DPLG was not responsible for any guarantees, but their input had to be considered for the Special Measures Bill.  The host cities desired to incorporate submissions into the Bill, as there were agreements between them and DPLG.  There should be a clause to indemnify the host cities from anything resulting from the agreements.

Dr J Phaahle (DG 2010 Unit) said that a meeting with the host cities had been held two weeks previously where the issues had been raised.  This was a concern.  There were signed agreements between the host cities and the LOC (2010 FIFA World Cup Organising Committee South Africa) and FIFA.  The host cities had approached the LOC, as clarity was needed as to which cities would be awarded matches before the bidding cities embarked on expensive 2010 projects.  The contracts were therefore signed earlier than planned.  There were some aspects which were beyond their control, such as security, integrated technology and broadcast rights.

On 25 May it was decided that the cities would work concurrently with DPLG in creating a new mechanism rather than using the Special Measures Bill.  There was some coverage in terms of existing legislation, and details of the agreements could be renegotiated.  So it was therefore not necessary to interfere with the Bill as it stood.  The host cities agreed, and a workshop process was being set up between the 2010 Unit and DPLG.

Mr Frolick said that further information was needed on DPLG’s position during the work of the Committee.  He asked if it was necessary to have specific measures to combat ambush marking, as the Department of Trade and Industries (DTI) already had the power to declare an event protected.

Mr Boshoff replied that Section 15 of the Merchandising Marketing Act made provision for protected status. However, this could only be applied for a period of up to one month after such an event.  A broader scope was needed, and so the Special Measures Bill made provision for a period of longer than one month.

Mr Frolick asked why this was necessary, as the Cricket World Cup in 2003 had been run under the provisions of the Merchandising Marketing Act.

Mr Boshoff replied that this was a FIFA request. SRSA had first thought that a period of two to three months would be sufficient, but thought that the period in the Bill should rather be open-ended to prevent the need for further amendments.

The Chairperson asked if there had been any attempt to negotiate this issue with FIFA.  He said there must be a cut off time.  The blank cheque approach demanded was incorrect.

Deputy Minister Oosthuizen said this was not a blank cheque situation.  He agreed that there needed to be a limitation.  The Merchandising Marketing Act would not necessarily apply to public viewing spaces.  The time period in question might be up to two months before the time, and the Confederations Cup had to be included, but Christmas could not last forever.

Mr Komphela said that on the balance of probability, a period of six months should be enough.  This could be renegotiated if still not enough.  His view was that this should work within certain time frames.

Mr J Masango (DA) asked if South African business people would be excluded from commercial activity regarding the World Cup.

The Deputy Minister replied that on the contrary there would be wonderful opportunities for local businessmen.  The exclusive arrangements for official FIFA sponsors would only exist at match venues and public viewing areas, where only FIFA sponsors would have the right to market and sell their products.  Outside of these venues there would be a chance to create business opportunities and also in the build-up to the tournament.  This would assist the objectives of ASGISA.

Mr T Louw (ANC) asked what the impact would be on small business persons at the stadiums.

The Deputy Minister replied that no advertisements would be allowed for sponsors in competition to FIFA’s official sponsors.  Any such logos within a given radius of the stadiums would have to be removed.  However, these regulations had nothing to do with small food vendors.

Mr Frolick asked if these measures were also applicable to the Confederations Cup, and how long they would be in force.

Deputy Minister Oosthuizen replied that they would be.  Mr Boshoff expanded that the 2010 World Cup was defined as including the Confederations Cup in 2009.

Mr Frolick returned to the ambush marketing clause.  He presumed that the legislation would kick in for the Confederation Cup, and wondered if the measures would cease as some stage before the World Cup itself, of if they would be applied through the entire period.

Mr Boshoff said this was not the intention of the Bill.  However, this was not specifically stated.

Mr G Hoon (State Legal Advisor) confirmed that Clause 2 on Page 3 of the Bill allowed the Minister of Trade and Industries to declare a protected area, and this would include both tournaments.

Mr Frolick referred to cases in Germany where FIFA had insisted on a change of name for certain stadiums.  Stadiums in South Africa, many of which were subject to commercial naming rights agreements, might lose their name for the duration of the two tournaments.

Mr Hoon agreed that this was the correct interpretation.

Mr M Dikgacwi (ANC) asked if the question of advertising rights and FIFA sponsors had been raised during consultations with the national federations.  If so, had the federations accepted this eventuality, including the possible renaming of stadiums?

The Chairperson said that there was a possibility of a split. He understood that the Confederation Cup was held the year before the World Cup. The inclusion of the Confederation Cup should be explicitly stated.

Mr Boshoff replied that this was stated in Section 2 of the Bill, so was already covered.  The declaration of a protected event covered both tournaments.  The period of time covered in the declaration would be determined by DTI, according to the projected facts.

Mr Komphela asked what would happen if the Minister was ill-informed, as the situation could then be exploited by FIFA.

Dr Phaahle said that there were two issues.  Firstly, under the concept of a protected event, the World Cup definition was understood to include the Confederation Cup.  The day the Minister signed the declaration would be the day it became effective.  In fact, this was already effective.  The Minister would declare the time that the regulations would fall away.

On the other issue of ambush marketing, this was a portion of the coverage.  A stadium use agreement would be drawn up by the host city and the venue.  This would be a specific prescription for each venue.  FIFA would enter into a stadium lease agreement with that venue.  Within a one kilometre radius of the stadium only FIFA partners would be allowed to exhibit and sell their product.  This would apply to a period approximately two weeks before and after an event, and would apply to both the Confederation Cup and the World Cup.

The Chairperson remarked that unofficial memorabilia was already on sale.

The Deputy Minister replied that he was aware of this.  FIFA would take action against the illegal marketeers.

Mr B Solo (ANC) asked what the cost would be to the owners of stadiums.  Regarding the removal of advertising billboards, he wanted to know who would pay for this and for the logistical arrangements for the removal of boards and the rehabilitation of the stadium after the event.  The Chairperson agreed that some sort of compensation should be paid.

Deputy Minister Oosthuizen said that there would be a lease agreement between FIFA and the stadium owners.  FIFA had wanted eight venues.  The South African government, in a bid to increase the legacy value of World Cup facilities, had pushed for ten venues.  Government needed to tilt affairs in favour of its people.  A minimum of five stadiums would be owned the the local municipality.  Others were privately owned, but there would still be lease agreements.  The costs of replacing advertising hoardings would have to be discussed.  He envisaged that there would be negotiations on the cost implications.

The Chairperson said he was thrilled to have received this information.  However, some questions had only been answered two years later.  The 2010 Unit needed to go into some detail.

Mr Dikgacwi asked how much money was being spent, and if legal advice was available.  People needed to be advised, especially where frustrations might lead to protests, should people feel they were being denying a chance to make some money.

Mr Frolick said some synergy was needed.  He could now understand some of DPLG’s concerns.

Deputy Minister Oosthuizen replied that it was now up to SRSA to determine the details and to undertake risk analysis.  All were to be complimented on their contributions to the debate.  He said that the initial request from FIFA for implementation of the protected status had been 24 months.

The Chairperson responded that this was a life term.

The Deputy Minister was aware of this, but raising the curtain on this one thing would alert the public to this.  He understood that there must be a cut-off time.  He said that agreements must be accommodated.  South Africa would not be the owners of the World Cup, but would merely be hosting the event of behalf of FIFA.  He thanked the committee and then excused himself to attend to other business.

Mr Boshoff said that there were representatives of various departments were present.  Co-ordination with the provinces was also needed.  They would need to be proactive and interrogate various provisions in the Bill.

The Chairperson asked if there were any difficulties or suggestions from the Department of Agriculture.

Mr B Beukes (Legal Officer, Dept of Agriculture) said his was quite happy.  There were some issues regarding liquor which needed to be addressed by his department and DTI.

Mr Solo asked what were the issues regarding Agriculture.  They and the South African Police Services (SAPS) were present, but asked where DPLG was. 

The Chairperson assured him that DPLG would attend on another day.  He asked the SAPS legal team if they had any issues of importance, and to disclose any wisdom in the Bill.

Mr Geldenhuys (SAPS Legal Services) said that the SAPS, through the Department of Safety and Security, had furnished a guarantee.  Safety and Security guaranteed the safety of the people and the venues which would be involved.  SAPS had therefore requested certain provisions to make it possible for them to comply with this. 

There were essentially three areas.  The first was control of access to various places.  The control of movement of persons was also an issue.  The Bill was empowering legislature in this regard.  Clause 10 page 6 defined designated areas.  These could be any area, where access would only be granted to accredited persons.  Clause 10.3 said that the LOC could issue accreditation.  Different areas within and around stadiums would be defined, and the access rights of spectators and players would be identified.  These would be spectator areas, team rooms, VIP areas and so on.  There would be vendor areas outside the stadium.  Different accreditation cards would be made to reflect the holder’s status.  The same policy would apply at functions, practice and accommodation facilities.  Clear signs would indicate who was allowed in any given area.

Mr Geldenhuys said that Clause 10.2 gave the LOC the right to identify areas.  This would help a lot.  Clause 11 on page 7 described some specific access control measures.  Clause 11.4 indicated the penalties for trespass.  Clause 11.2 gave a peace officer the right to demand an accreditation card.  He could refuse entry if this was lacking, and remove said person from the area.

He said the SAPS had a basic blueprint.  They had experience from Cricket World Cup 2003 and the World Summit for Sustainable Development which had shown SAPS to be capable to meet the challenge.

He said that 11.3 gave the SAPS the right to use a reasonable amount of force.  Clause 12 on page 7 described traffic-free zones.  Because of the crowds high risk situations would be expected.  Should it become necessary to evacuate the area in an emergency access to the scene for emergency vehicles would be essential.

The Chairperson agreed that there might be a problem of obstruction.  The situation around the area of operations needed attention.  A radius of one kilometre should ensure enough free space.

Mr Geldenhuys said there were two areas of concern; firstly the stadium and secondly the immediate vicinity of the stadium.  SAPS would prefer spectators to use public transport.  Private vehicles may obstruct areas and there was the problem of illegally parked vehicles blocking the approach routes to the stadium.

The Chairperson said that illegally parked vehicles should be removed and impounded.

Mr Geldenhuys said that Clause 12 made that possible.  Accredited vehicles would be identified by a windscreen sticker.  Clause 12 (1)(b) defined a traffic-free zone.  A peace officer could request the removal and impounding of an errant vehicle.  Clause 12(4) described the impounding procedure and Claue 12(5) gave details of the offence.

He said that Clause 13 was a vital aspect of the Bill.  Control was needed over what objects and substances were brought into the stadium.  Provision was made for the search of persons, vehicles and containers.  The seizure of undesirable items was empowered.  This was a practical matter, and the exact procedure to be followed would be described in relevant regulations.  In Clause 13 (2) on page 8, it was stipulated that reasonable force could be used if the approached person refused to be searched.  Clause 14, especially 14 (2) on page 8 empowered the Minister of Safety and Security to make regulations.  The powers of peace officers were to be defined, and regulations made regarding the erection of scanners.  He was happy with the provisions of the Bill.

Mr Masango said that the South African public was developing a culture of non-conformance.  He also asked how influential the parking marshals would be.

Mr Louw asked why policemen were being described as peace officers.

Mr Geldenhuys said that security personnel such as the parking marshals, would be needed, and others would be employed by stadium management.

The Chairperson said that there should be a relationship between SAPS and the security personnel.

Mr Geldenhuys said that extensive consultation and planning would go into this.  Volunteers would be screened to weed out undesirable persons.  Every member of the SAPS was a peace officer, but so where others such as members of the Metropolitan Police and traffic policemen.  SAPS had limited manpower, so the personnel of all other Safety and Security agencies would also need to be involved.  A joint planning session would be held.

Mr Frolick said that there were be two categories of volunteers, namely the FIFA volunteers and the municipal volunteers.  Everybody involved, including the car guards, must be part of one of the recognized groups.  He asked if SAPS would be making use of any foreign forces would be called in to help, as this would be an African World Cup.

Mr Lucas asked if there would be sufficient security at accommodation facilities.  He was concerned about lady visitors at team hotels.

Mr Solo said the picture regarding emergency services was not clear.  There was a link to disaster management.

Mr E Saloojee (ANC) asked if there had been any SAPS observers in Germany.

Mr Geldenhuys replied that all marshals would be from one of the recognised groups.  They would have to apply for accreditation, and these applications would be screened.  The LOC would be responsible for this, in consultation with the National Commissioner for Police.  There the screening process would be done, and criminal records would be looked up.

The Chairperson said that the local community should be empowered.  Experiences with the riot squad in the past showed that using outsiders in these situations could be a potential problem, especially with areas such as language.  The legacy aspect must also be considered.

Mr Geldenhuys said this was correct.  Central planning would be done at the national headquarters.  Policy would be determined, and every region would be represented.  Implementation would take place at local level by regional commissioners.  This would include the accreditation process.  If necessary outside help would be requested, but this would be done under the authority of the local commissioner.

Foreign help would come from co-operation with Interpol.  There was a SAPS delegation in Germany.  They had visited the country during its preparation phase for the current World Cup and are also observing during the tournament.  Specific competencies, such as British experience with hooligan identification would be addressed on a consultancy basis.  Some expert advice would be used during the 2010 World Cup, and there would be liaison personnel present especially for foreign language visitors.

Mr Geldenhuys confirmed that there would be security at accommodation venues.  Individuals would be advised and assisted should they feel the need to go out by themselves.  Visitors to team accommodation would be check at the entrance to hotels.

Emergency services had included discussions with disaster management, and they were part of the planning process.  Risk would be determined locally, and planning would take place on a local level.  Operations people from the SAPS were visiting Germany.

Mr Frolick commented on the vocabulary used by police.  He alluded to an incident in Port Elizabeth, where a small confrontation had almost led to a riot at a South African match.  He asked if any public relations training would be needed.

Mr Geldenhuys replied that a strict process was followed.  Every member would be properly briefed on how to treat the public and some general courses would be held.  Discretion would be used. 

The Chairperson said that the issue alluded to by Mr Frolick had occurred during 2005.  Policemen from East London had been involved, and the importance of local knowledge was illustrated by this.  He had a bit of a problem with the definition of a peace officer.  Concerning Clauses 11 to 13, he asked if security guards supplied by FIFA would be included in SAPS plans.

Mr Geldenhuys said that the definition of a peace officer was contained in the Criminal Procedures Act.  FIFA security guards were not part of the SAPS equation.  Discussions had been held with FIFA in this regard, and it had been made clear that security would be the responsibility of SAPS.  FIFA had agreed to this.  They may bring in their own security, but they would not be allowed to carry any weapons and would have no power whatsoever.  Protection would be provided, but SAPS would remain in charge.  FIFA was happy with this arrangement.

The Chairperson was happy with that arrangement.  Mr Geldenhuys said that in the case of visiting Heads of State, the government would decide what arrangements would be made regarding their security.

The Chairperson raised some issues from Clauses 3(2)(b), 5(1) and 5(2) regarding spectators and FIFA workers being regarded as spectators.

Mr Boshoff said that in Section 3(2)(b) on page 4, spectator was used as a generic term.  This included all spectators at a match.  In Clause 5, various categories of people who could be issued visas were addressed.  This referred to persons who would normally need to have visas to enter South Africa.  Section 5 (1)(b) said that visitors permits would be issued to persons normally exempt from visa requirements.  In Section 5(2) any person wishing to work in South Africa during the World Cup would have to submit a letter requesting a working permit.  This would have to be approved by some authority.

Mr Hoon said that he would consult with Home Affairs regarding the wording of Clause 5(1) as it was confusing.  The Chairperson said he had a problem understanding Clauses 3(2) and 5(2).

Mr Frolick asked how many people had been involved in drafting the Bill.  There were inconsistencies in language usage.

Mr Boshoff replied that all departments had given inputs from their respective legal sections.  These had then been redrafted by the state legal office, but the basis had been laid by different departments.  There were differences in style.

Mr Solo said that a clearer understanding was needed when dealing with some clauses.  The SAPS had covered the issues which needed to be highlighted.

The Chairperson said that interaction was needed with DTI, which would happen at the Wednesday meeting.

Mr Beukes said that he would also need to consult with DTI.

The meeting was adjourned for lunch.

Afternoon Session
The Chairperson asserted that the Bill should clearly state the financial obligations of the state with regard to the 2010 World Cup. The Preamble had to clearly explain the objectives of the Bill. Clarity was sought on the value of state guarantees given to FIFA to secure hosting rights. The Preamble referred to certain state guarantees.

Mr G Boshoff stated that no financial implications rested with the state in terms of the current Bill. The guarantees referred to had a bearing on the Financial Measures Bill. National Treasury would capture any financial obligations in their own legislation.

Mr J Phaahla (Head: 2010 WC sub-unit) stated that the Financial Measures Bill was not meant to consider any financial implications. He noted that financial obligations lay with individual government departments such as the South African Police Services in terms of security arrangements to meet certain guarantees.

The Chairperson concurred that the hosting of a World Cup would necessitate financial obligations for line function departments. The Bill should state how relevant departments would address financial implications. Clarity was sought on the process to declare stadia for the event. He referred to concurrent powers between the Minister and provincial governments.

Mr G Boshoff stated that the Minister had to declare a stadium to be used in the World Cup in the Government Gazette. He stated that the LOC had to forward a request for declaration of a stadium to the Minister in writing. The Minister was compelled to declare a stadium if all criteria were met. The LOC had to draw up a list of venues and submit to the Minister.

The Chairperson countered that the process appeared too easy. Sport was not only a national competency. Negotiations were needed to clarify the process to dress cities with the appropriate flags and decorations.

Mr Phaahla responded that each Metro would be responsible for the dressing process in accordance with budgetary constraints. LOCs and FIFA would discuss details of how the process would unfold.

Mr Frolick reminded Members that cities in Germany were already dressed two weeks before the start of the World Cup predominantly in FIFA colours.

The Chairperson referred to a previous guarantee signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2003 for the playing of the National Anthem.

Mr Phaahla replied that the guarantee was issued to secure entry to the bidding process for South Africa. Ten guarantees were signed by various Ministers at the time.

The Chairperson referred to Clause 6 that dealt with the marketing and distribution of liquor during the event.

Mr Boshoff stated that the Minister of Sport and Recreation had to designate all commercial affiliates within the Government Gazette that had been issued marketing rights by FIFA. FIFA would nominate certain individuals as commercial affiliates that would receive marketing rights from FIFA. Commercial affiliates were entitled to exercise marketing rights as per agreement but also had to comply with applicable local laws and terms of conditions agreed to with FIFA. For example, Sections 12 and 13 of the Liquor Act had to be complied with and any national and provincial legislation that dealt with marketing, distribution and consumption of liquor. FIFA had to inform the Minister of Trade and Industry on the types of liquor to be consumed during the event.

The Chairperson asked whether the Department anticipated a major flood of liquor imports into the country as a result of the clause.

Mr Boshoff replied that various Acts were already in place with accompanying penalties. Relevant departments had to ensure that the provisions of the Bill were implemented correctly.

Mr Geldenhuys stated that the Bill provided for the distribution and consumption of liquor at World Cup events. The provision would not suspend existing criminal offences. The clause provided for regulatory issues.

The Chairperson asserted that the suspension of restrictions on marketing and distribution of liquor that would result in high levels of intoxication amongst citizens had potentially serious implications. Transgressors would have to be arrested and he asked whether the clause was creating unintended and unnecessary consequences.

Mr Geldenhuys declared that certain non-negotiables existed with regard to the World Cup. New regulations could be added to prevent an escalation of criminal and anti-social behaviour. For example, sales times for liquor could be restricted.

The Chairperson stated that all consequences should be considered such as the ready availability of liquor.

Mr Boshoff referred to the Safety at Sport and Recreation Events Bill that dealt with the consumption of liquor and other substances. Quantities of liquor that would be allowed to be consumed per person were specified.

Mr Phaahle asked how the control of consumption of beers within a stadium could be facilitated. Alcohol manufacturers were part of the FIFA commercial affiliates and would be seeking to advertise their products and sell as much as possible during the event.

The Chairperson reiterated that a problem lay with the distribution and consumption of liquor at events.

Mr Phaahle declared that restrictions on sales times and amount of items per person could be imposed to curtail adverse consequences. Controlled sales had been arranged at the cricket World Cup.

Commissioner Geldenhuys stated that Clause 6(2)(a)(ii) should be considered, which stated that all commercial affiliates had to comply with all existing laws. For example, the law relating to the sale of liquor to minors would still apply. The agreement between FIFA and the commercial affiliates was important to determine the conditions and terms of arrangements.

Mr E Saloojee (ANC) noted that no severe restrictions existed outside stadiums in terms of consumption.

The Chairperson declared that all issues would be considered by the Committee to prevent unintended consequences.

Mr Boshoff added that the draft Events Bill contained clauses to restrict the sale of liquor to spectators by alcohol vendors to two units per spectator.

Mr Frolick asked about the impact of the Bill on pre-existing businesses that trade in alcohol near stadiums that was not included in FIFA agreements. He asked whether such businesses would be restricted in the sale of other products.

Mr Boshoff asserted that the clause intended to restrict the sale of other items near venues.

Mr G Hoon (State Law Advisor) stated that the clause intended to allow commercial affiliates to market and distribute liquor at the stadia that was not normally sold in South Africa. The clause did not preclude other vendors from continuing to sell their products.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would tend to favour the interpretation that local vendors could continue to sell their products. The issue would be resolved at the next meeting.

Mr Boshoff explained that FIFA would provide details to the Minister of all liquor to be sold at venues during the World Cup.

The Chairperson noted that the timeframe for the provision of this information was lacking and advocated that the anomaly be addressed.

Mr Boshoff referred to Clauses 7, 8 and 9 that dealt with the importation of medicines and related substances. The chronological order of the clauses would have to be rectified.

The Chairperson asked why the clauses referred to export of medicines as the Bill was intended to focus on the importation of medicines and other products for the World Cup.

Prof D Hendricks responded that the surplus would have to be exported after the conclusion of the event.

Mr Hoon declared that an export permit might be necessary and he would follow up before the next meeting.

Mr Saloojee asked whether the Minister of Health had expressed an opinion on the clauses related to health matters.

Mr C Malivhadla (DOH-Legal Advisor) stated that the Minister had been informed of the provisions of the Bill through the Director-General.

The meeting was adjourned.