Committee Report on International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea; Committee Oversight Reports

Meeting report

The Chairperson tendered the apologies of Deputy Minister of Transport Ms Sindisiwe Chikunga to the Committee.

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Transport on the International convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010 (HNS Convention) – 9 February 2016

The Committee having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the HNS Convention and the Explanatory Memorandum thereto recommended that the House in terms of section 231(2) of the constitution 1996 approve the Convention.

The Committee was unanimous in its decision.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Transport on its oversight visit to the Passenger RAIL Agency of South Africa (PRASA) and the Mamelodi Autopax Bus Depot

Ms Valerie Carelse, Committee Secretary, noted that one of the reasons for the oversight visit was for PRASA to provide the Committee with an update of its Rolling Stock Programme. Members were provided with presentations on the entity’s new stock. PRASA also provided the Committee with an undertaking that the construction of its manufacturing plant would be finalised by 1 July 2016. The Committee was given an update on the preparations on the construction of the plant with detail on the progress made, implementation dates and environmental issues which had caused delays. However, since the oversight visit there had been no update forthcoming from PRASA on what had transpired thus far. During the oversight visit PRASA had also briefed the Committee on the state of rail safety. She highlighted some of the observations of the Committee, which included concerns about the safety of the AFRO 4000 locomotives due to queries around the height specifications of the locomotives and its suitability for operations on the South African rail network. The Committee had as yet not finalised its recommendations on PRASA in the Draft Report.

The second part of the Draft Report covered the visit to the Mamelodi Autopax Bus Depot. Ms Carelse pointed out that the area had in recent times experienced some challenges and members had made recommendations in the Draft Report. The Committee noted the responses from the Gauteng Department on Roads and Transport and Autopax to address the challenges during the 3-month period that the contract with Autopax was in place. The Gauteng Department on Roads and Transport further briefed the Committee on the way forward after the interim contract with Autopax.

Discussion

Mr L Ramatlakane (ANC) recalled that the Committee had been briefed about the specifications of the locomotives during the oversight visit. In the end concerns, were allayed about the height of locomotives being suitable for use in SA. The Committee had at the time been informed that a study was being done on all locomotives as far as specifications suitable to SA were concerned. The media had raised height concerns but the Committee had noted the explanation given by PRASA. The Committee observation in the Draft Report on the matter did not mention the briefing given. Given that recommendations by the Committee still had to be finalised, he recommended that the Committee have a follow up meeting with the PRASA where it should be updated on the issues it had highlighted. The follow up briefing should cover issues about the depot, the cancellation of contracts and what the delivery dates for the trains were.

The Chairperson said that Mr Ramatlakane had captured the essence of what the Committee felt. The Draft Report of the Committee was 6-8 months old and Members should be aware that developments were taking place concerning the subject matter that the Committee was dealing with. The Committee also needed to ask the Executive Authority of PRASA to pull in the reins regarding how it was was doing things. PRASA basically did what it wanted to without the Executive Authority stepping in. The issue was not only about the PRASA itself but its behaviour had implications on other State Owned Entities (SOEs) as well. Soon other SOEs would also do as they pleased. She suggested that the Committee recommend that the Executive Authority rein PRASA in where it was not acting as it should. During the last session of Parliament in 2015, the Committee’s meeting with PRASA on its Annual Report had been disrupted. She suggested that the Committee recommend that the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of subsidiaries need to brief the Committee on where they encountered problems. There needed to be accountability as the ball was being dropped when it came to governance. All concerns of the Auditor-General of SA (AGSA) should be addressed. The AGSA had for the past five years been raising the same issues. There simply had been no improvement. Everyone was hiding behind the Group CEO. The CEOs responsible for the day to day running of subsidiaries needed to account. The Committee needed to nip things in the bud. She added that the visit to the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) on Roads and Transport in Gauteng, Mr Ismail Vadi, was helpful and a report of the MEC should be included in the Draft Report. Intergovernmental relations between national, provincial and local government on transport was important. Were there policies or legislation that required amendment on the implementation of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems? She stated that everyone implemented the BRT in their own way. There were six metros in total that had implemented the BRT and the Committee needed to be briefed on their operational progresses. In this way the Committee could perhaps identify deficiencies. The crux was not about the policy but more about the challenge of implementation.

Mr M Sibande (ANC), referring to page 7 of the Draft Report on the section dealing with the visit to the Autopax Bus Depot, said that he was not comfortable with bullet point two which read “Travelling by taxi was a challenge as taxis were regarded as unroadworthy, unlicensed and taxis tended to deviate off the routes, especially during road blocks.” He agreed with the Chairperson’s suggestion that the report of the Gauteng MEC on Roads and Transport should be included in the Draft Report. At the time of the visit to the MEC the Committee had not received the MEC’s report.

Mr M Maswanganyi (ANC) asked who owned rail infrastructure. Was it Transnet or PRASA? He asked who was supposed to deal with challenges that arose. He asked whether the Committee should schedule a meeting with Transnet. He noted that PRASA would say that challenges were the responsibility of Transnet. The Committee could not ignore the fact of aging rail infrastructure. He suggested that the Committee do a follow up on the issue. He also asked where the AFRO 4000 locomotives were at present. Were the locomotives operational? There needed to be accountability as public funds was being used. On the issue of the PRASA doing as it pleased he asked whether the Executive Authority had lost control or were they willing partners. How could a parastatal do as it wished?

Mr Ramatlakane also asked where the locomotives were. The briefing that he had earlier suggested would shed light on where they were. The Rail Regulator had been testing the locomotives to check whether they could operate all over SA. The Committee needed to know the final outcome of the testing. He suggested that the Committee adopt the Draft Report with recommendations and inputs made.

The Chairperson pointed out that the Committee had met with the PRASA and Transnet over their lack of gelling on the issue of infrastructure. It was a complex issue. Legislation was however clear on what the Executive Authority needed to do. PRASA leased the use of rail from Transnet. PRASA owed Transnet a great deal of money. In certain areas, freight trains got priority over passenger trains. When the Committee had meetings with the PRASA and Transnet, neither party wanted to concede an inch. Everyone wanted to protect their own turf. Going back to the Reconstruction and Redevelopment Plan (RDP), the focus had been on taking transport to rural areas. Improvements on rail transport should have taken place. Shosholoza Meyl was also scaling down due to challenges with Transnet. These were all issues which the Committee needed to raise with the Minister. Unreliable rail transport impacted hugely on the economy. Safety on trains was lacking as muggings took place daily. Trains also regularly broke down. Lastly, she stated that sometimes Members arrived late or departed early from meetings not for trivial reasons but because they had commitments in other committees as well.

The Committee adopted the Draft Report as amended.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Transport on its oversight visit to the North West Province on the implementation of the Provincial Road Maintenance Grant (PRMG)

Ms Carelse proceeded to take the Committee through the Draft Report. The Committee was briefed on how the PRMG was allocated and implemented. Some of the issues were the conditions of roads, the funding of maintenance and the challenges faced in the implementation of projects. Key challenges of the North West Province in the implementation of the PRMG were insufficient funding for Roads Infrastructure Development and Maintenance, shortage of internal technical staff; engineers; technologists; technicians and artisans, inability to attract technical staff due to the introduction of the Occupation Specific Dispensation and finally the overloading of heavy vehicles on the province’s roads.

Concerns raised by Members were that because of collapsed bridges, communities were cut off from schools and clinics etc. Travelling costs for community members increased as longer distances had to be covered. Where bridges had collapsed the question was asked as to why disaster management funds had not been used. Communities were also concerned about the maintenance of bridges. Even minibus taxi associations complained that they were losing income.

Observations by the Committee included the socio-economic impact that the collapsed bridges in the Province had on communities. The Committee also noted the views of the Department of Transport that there was a decline in the Equitable Share allocation by provinces with the increase in the PRMG and that continuous changes in the gazetted project lists by provinces caused delays in the project implementation. Roads that bordered provinces were also not well maintained.

Recommendations by the Committee were that provinces prioritise the reconstruction of bridges damaged by floods and that there should be an audit of bridges in the Province. The Department should also engage with the South African National Road Agency Limited (SANRAL) regarding assistance with construction and rehabilitation of bridges. Road construction and maintenance contracts should be allocated to competent contractors who used appropriate technology.  

Discussion

Mr Sibande said that the collapsed bridges in the Province were an embarrassment as some had collapsed as far back as 2010. He asked how many bridges had collapsed in the Province. The Draft Report spoke about three bridges that had collapsed. Had four bridges not collapsed in the Province?

He also asked who was to take responsibility and ownership of the collapsed bridges. There were disputes between the Gauteng and North West Provinces on who should take responsibility. He reiterated the complaints by communities that travelling costs increased due to longer travelling distances because bridges had collapsed. The damage to some of the bridges due to soil erosion was so great that it was felt that national intervention was required. He noted that communities had asked the Committee to fast track the process because the matter of the collapsed bridges was a long time coming.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had visited three collapsed bridges but in all four bridges had collapsed. The bridges had collapsed between 2008 and 2012. MEC Vadi had written a letter to the Committee that a bridge was being redesigned and that in February or March 2016 the Programme was to kick off. When on oversight the Committee had been informed by engineers and heads of department that the PRMG had been awarded to the North West Province so there was funding available. It was important for the Committee to engage with the MEC on Roads and Transport of the North West Province. The Committee in looking at the PRMG found that the provincial government did not allocate funding for roads. The belief was that the PRMG was for grants. The Committee observed that PRMG funds were used elsewhere where it was needed to address complaints of communities. The Committee needed to recommend that PRMG funds needed to be ring-fenced for its intended purpose.

An additional observation by the Committee could be that job creation went hand in hand with capacity building. On human capital development she asked what types of jobs were being created. The Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) should be used to give persons technical skills. Human resource development needed to be beefed up.  The Minister of Transport needed to look at the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the S’hamba Sonke Programme in the North West Province. This could be done by receiving quarterly reports. It could give insight into where funds had been used. Roads in the North West Province were in a bad state. Communities of the North West Province complained that Gauteng Province’s roads were in a good condition. She recommended that the MEC of the North West Province appear before the Committee to inform members how he could be assisted.

Ms S Xego (ANC) noted that the recommendations that the Committee made were directed to the Minister of Transport and the Department of Transport. She asked whether the Committee had to wait till the Draft Report was submitted to Parliament before the recommendations could be forwarded to the Minister. She asked and if the recommendations were forwarded to the Minister when could the Committee expect feedback.

Mr M Mabika (ANC) concurred with Ms Xego’s comments. He agreed that the MEC of the North West Province should appear before the Committee on what was being done given the bad situation.

The Chairperson said that when the Department of Transport joined the Committee on oversight visits they would inform the Minister of issues. The Committee would get feedback on what was happening on the ground. The Committee could recommend that the Roads Unit update members on progress.

The Committee adopted the Draft Report as amended.

Committee Minutes

The Chairperson placed the Minutes of the 26 January 2016 before the Committee for consideration.

Mr Ramatlakane on page 4 paragraph 3.8 made the addition of “unsupported view” to the paragraph. A grammatical change was also made to paragraph 3.10. He also suggested a portion of the last paragraph of the Minutes be deleted.

Mr Sibande supported what Mr Ramtlakane had suggested and even suggested that paragraph 3.10 be deleted.

The Committee adopted the Minutes as amended.

The Committee considered Minutes dated the 22 September 2015.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) felt that the Minutes needed to be more specific on some of the issues it contained.

The Committee adopted the Minutes as amended.

The meeting was adjourned.