SA Parliament's oversight over Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs): meeting with the UK Parliament

Meeting report

Pre-meeting issues
The United Kingdom delegation was scheduled to meet the Committee at 10h00, but the Members met at 9h00 so that they could prepare questions and deliberate before meeting with the delegation.

Some of the Committee members had other Committees that they also had to attend, and requested that they be allowed to leave earlier.

The Chairperson asked if Members could appeal to the whips of the other Committees, because the U.K. delegation was here only for the day, and they might not be able to have another meeting.

Committee members said that issues of the Brexit, economic partnership agreements (EPAs), bilateral agreements, oversight models and legislative frameworks needed to be engaged with the delegation.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was not in a position to address the impact of EPAs on specific countries, but rather that they would address issues related only to South Africa and the greater Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the South African Customs Union (SACU) region.

Meeting with All Party Parliamentary Group
The Chairperson welcomed the delegation and gave a breakdown of the government of South Africa, from the local level to the national level. He said that Committee Members were representatives of their political parties and therefore had questions of particular interests which their political parties had prepared for discussion.

Ms Chi Onwurah, Member of Parliament (MP), Newcastle Central, said that her delegation had been tasked with looking at trade with Africa and within Africa. The delegation was here to look at South Africa's trade in the context of the EPA, how EPAs had impacted on local industry and livelihoods, and whether they were supporting policies. The focus of the delegation post-Brexit was to examine how the EPAs would affect future trade with the African region and South Africa specifically, as well as how Parliamentarians conducted their oversight.

Ms Amanda Solloway, MP, Derby North, was interested in how Parliamentarians monitored the impact of trade agreements and how they impacted businesses and people in their constituencies. Also, were there measures in place to monitor the impact of trade agreements on the greater community?

Ms Anne McLaughlin, MP, Glasgow North East, was interested in what involvement the public had with EPAs, and whether there had been public protests in support of, or against, the EPAs.

The Chairperson said that EPA agreements were made by the Executive, and Parliamentary Committee members conducted oversight on those agreements. South Africa had approximately 18 international agreements, and they were scattered among different government departments. In terms of oversight, they differed from one Committee to the next, but in some cases Committees combined forces in terms of issues dealing with a broad management perspective.

Regarding economic trade relations, DIRCO did engage with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in order to determine the character of agreements and so forth, in order to know how funds were spent.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) said that according to the constitution, it was mandated that every law signed must involve public participation through the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) and other civil society organizations, so that public input and consultation was given. The EPAs were mainly the preserve of the DTI, but DIRCO was the one that opened the doors for international trade through diplomatic relations.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said that DIRCO had strong policies regarding foreign policy agreements.
Regional integration was something that SADC was struggling with. He asked what the impact of Brexit would be, looking at the geopolitical landscape of the U.K., with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales falling under the U.K.

Mr L Mpumlwana (ANC) asked if the U.K was asking for bilateral agreements with the individual SADC countries, or as a group.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) said that with Brexit, South Africa would be in a position to see what benefits there would be for it from Brexit, as well as for SADC region.
 
Ms T Kenye (ANC) asked if the U.K would suffer a lot with its withdrawal from EU agreements.

Mr M Maila (ANC) welcomed the delegation, and said that trade agreements were in the realm of the Executive, but that it was interesting that the U.K did not have a written constitution. He asked how the U.K would work out who would be responsible for what, if it entered into trade relations.

Responses
Ms Onwurah said that she and the two other women who made up the U.K delegation had supported remaining in the EU, but the public had voted differently and now they had to deal with the effects of that decision. Engaging with the South African government would help them better understand trade relations with African countries. The U.K was still in the EU and would not be triggering Article 50 until next year. The current space was the time for understanding relations with the trade partners abroad.
The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was “dead” and there were negotiations in progress with regard to new economic relations.

Ms Solloway said that while the U.K delegation was not in a decision-making position, they were in a position to influence policies. Brexit was an opportunity for the U.K to renegotiate trade relations with international partners, and these negotiations needed not be rushed.

Ms McLaughlin said that in the Scottish Parliament, before legislation was enacted, it was sent out to civil society groups for commentary and consultation. No one knew what the future for Scotland was -- whether it would be leaving the U.K or not. It was, however, part of the U.K and two years ago majority of the Scottish public had voted to remain in the U.K. With the U.K leaving the European Union (EU), Scotland had been requested to leave as well. The Scottish government had been in favor of remaining in Europe even though it was also part of the U.K.

Mr Iain Stewart, First Secretary, UK High Commission said that the government in London was working on a decision to understand the implications of Brexit, especially since the U.K had been part of the EU for over 40 years. The U.K would remain an EU member until article 50 was enacted.

He said that after the referendum, the market had taken a hit since a ‘remain’ outcome had been predicted. However, the outcome had been that the U.K should leave the EU and therefore markets had fluctuated following this outcome. Since then, however, the market had stabilised.

The Chairperson asked what oversight model the U.K Parliament used, since the South African Parliamentary oversight model had some challenges in monitoring all the foreign missions in the 126 countries that it had relations with. How did the U.K ensure that money sent to foreign missions was used for the correct purposes, as indicated.

Mr Mokgalapa asked what the view of the delegation was on immigration and terrorism.

Mr Radebe said that the biggest issue that had impacted Brexit had been immigration. In South Africa, immigration was also an issue that the government was always dealing with, with migrants from all over Africa, since South Africa was seen as an economic hub.

Mr Mpumlwana asked if the U.K. Government would revert to the six-month visa permit, now that it was an independent country.

Ms Dudley asked if the report on Libya had come past the delegation.

Mr Stewart said visa applications would most likely remain the same. It was an arrangement that was separate from the EU, and they would work to make it as transparent as possible.

Ms McLaughlin said that the negatives from the EU referendum were the hate crimes that had followed. Immigration policies would remain the same, and the U.K would still remain involved in the major anti-terrorism agreements.

Ms Solloway said that oversight was transparent, and Parliament held the government departments accountable to make sure that monies were spent where they were supposed to be.

Ms Onwurah said that while Brexit was a time of uncertainty, it was also a time of opportunity to engage in new relations with trade partners.

The Chairperson thanked the delegation for a fruitful and constructive discussion.

The meeting was adjourned.