Public Enterprises Portfolio Committee programme

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that although the finalisation and adoption of the Committee’s five-year programme had been on the agenda, she suggested that it be postponed until the following meeting. There were a list of issues which formed part of the focal points of the five-year plan, which had not been completed. There were further items that still needed to be presented to the Committee, together with further planning that needed to be done. Parliament viewed the programme as being firm and it was difficult to add matters after the programme has been finalised. She proposed that the five-year plan be adopted the following week.

Mr S Van Dyk (DA) agreed. He also had new suggestions. He asked whether he could present his proposals.

The Chairperson suggested that all new suggestions should be handed to the secretary, to be discussed the following week. She however allowed Mr Van Dyk to voice his suggestions.

Mr Van Dyk said that he was concerned because, according to research done by the trade unions, almost 62% of Eskom’s employees were unhappy with their working conditions, and do not see any future for themselves within the company. Eskom was a big enterprise, and this was a matter of concern that should be followed up. In addition to the follow up on the infrastructure build programme, there should also be a follow up on the personnel. Transnet’s pension fund also has a big problem that still had not been resolved since 1994. Eskom and Transnet were the two biggest enterprises and their responsibilities to previous and current personnel issues should be investigated.

The Chairperson suggested that the pension fund matter should fall under Legislation Implementation. There was the Transnet Pension Fund Amendment Act which had been enacted 18 months previously. This could be a matter of implementation. They would need to look into legislation regulation, and do necessary amendments if necessary. The Eskom employees issue should fall under Human Resources.

Mr Van Dyk said that he was currently busy with a presentation that he would like to present to the committee in due course, to give them a background on the changes to Transnet’s special benefit fund. He asked if he could present this at the next meeting.

The Chairperson said that this would be considered under Legislation Regulation when the five-year plan was being finalised.

Mr P Van Dalen (DA) said that he had sent an email to the Chairperson about the State Owned Enterprises’ risk management analysis and risk management plan, in which he suggested that SOEs ought to make a study of the risks that could threaten their co-existence. He suggested that this email should be made available to all committee members. This should also be made available to all the SOEs, in order for them to come up with plans on how to address these issues. After reading an article in the Business Report, he had asked questions about the security companies doing work for Eskom and Transnet. Transnet had named its security company. Eskom however was refusing to name their security company, yet they were spending R116 million a year on this company. There had been an article were one of the employees of Transnet had alleged that these companies were not performing, but they kept changing the company name while recycling the same people. As a result they could not be held accountable because the company name keep changing. He said that this should be looked into.

The Chairperson said that issues on risk management and planning had been agreed on and the previous meeting. She said that committee members should submit all items that they felt belonged in the five year plan by 31 August, to be discussed at the next meeting.

Dr G Koornhof (ANC) asked if annual reports could be looked at as early as the following week. Would it be possible for annual reports to be circulated to committee members as they become available.

Dr S Pillay (ANC) suggested that they should develop management principles that the SOEs should adopt. Micromanaging each SOE would be difficult, and could be avoided by adopting principles that would guide the SOEs.

The Chairperson said that another point that should have been on the agenda was to adopt the one year plan, and to decide what would be done in the next five-week plan. This was the time set aside for annual reports because according to law and procedure, they had to be tabled by the end of September. She proposed Broadband Infraco be the following week. Their report was ready and they had never appeared before the Committee. Their report should be looked reviewed over four hours. The first two hours would be an introductory briefing to their work. The last two hours would focus on their annual report.

The Secretary referred to the draft programme: Broadband Infraco was on 1 September; Transnet was on 8 September as they had also tabled their annual report; South African Express was on 15 September, Denel was 22 September and Eskom Holdings would be on 29 September.

The Chairperson suggested that Eskom should appear on 15 September because of the problem at Eskom, together with the timing in terms of the next application for tariff hikes and the funding model processes. Their annual report was ready and Eskom’s proposed date of 29 September would be too late for the funding model. This was the date that Eskom had requested and she said that was inclined not to agree.

Mr Van Dyk said that they could make it earlier as long as this was not given as an excuse not to prepare their presentation and documents.

The Chairperson said that when she met the SOEs in Kimberly during recess, Eskom had been ready, and she did not understand why they needed more time. All they were waiting for was the AGM which should have been held by now.

The Chairperson said that SA Express should be moved to 29 September. She proposed that, because of policy thinking, the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor should be moved to 6 October as it needed urgent attention. The Committee still needed to meet with its sister committee, Portfolio Committee on Energy.

The committee secretary said that PMBR had been granted an extension until 30 October to table its annual report.

The Chairperson said that she had not been notified of this, and the new date would stand until proper correspondence and motivation for the extensions had been submitted. She said that they would be taken on the 27 October if there were compelling reasons.

She noted that she had received correspondence from the Port Elizabeth Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding manganese pollution. She had written to the DGG responsible for Transnet, and to Transnet themselves, requesting a reply on the matter. She would be having a meeting with them in Johannesburg the following day to give them an opportunity to respond.

Dr Pillay suggested that this be acted on quickly. Transnet was planning a R130 million revamp, and it would be very difficult to relocate after a R130 million investment had been made. This should be dealt with urgently so that they could hold off on the revamp. There were health problems in Richards Bay because of the transportation and storage of coal and manganese.

The Chairperson suggested that that matter should be added to the 8 September agenda.

Dr Koornhof said that the Department’s annual report was due to be presented only on 3 November, which was too late. There should be groupings of the SOEs put together on one day in order to make room for the Department’s annual report to be moved earlier.

The Chairperson said that the secretary would go over the dates. Site visits needed to be done before the December recess. Once annual reports and mid-term budgets had been completed, a week should be set aside to visit one or two ports, preferably Port Elizabeth and Durban. A visit should also be paid to OR Tambo International Airport. This should be done in October since Parliament would very busy in November and might not allow it

The meeting was adjourned.