United Kingdom Study Tour at the invitation of the Defence Diversification Agency: Report

This premium content has been made freely available

Public Enterprises

21 February 2001
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

PUBLIC ENTERPRISE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
21 February 2001
UNITED KINGDOM STUDY TOUR: COMMITTEE REPORT

Chairperson: Mr ST Belot

Documents handed out:
Committee Report (to be published in Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports in early March)
Committee Programme 2001 (see Appendix)

SUMMARY
The Committee adopted the Committee Report without an amendment proposed by the Democratic Party that "the purpose of the trip was privatization and that this committee would avoid meeting with defence service organizations in future". There was a lengthy debate as opposition members believed that the emphasis of the tour had not been on privatization but on offsets as was shown during the meetings with British Aerospace and Rolls Royce. The Chair said that it should be put on record that this committee is not mandated to deal with offsets. He pointed out that during the trip they had maintained their integrity and made it clear to their hosts what the purpose of their study tour was.

MINUTES
The Chair in his opening remarks noted that the study tour to United Kingdom was at the invitation of the Defense Diversification Agency (DDA) for the benefit "of our work within the committee."

Ms Taljaard (DP) asked why the committee had delayed tabling the report. She expressed some reservations as to how the report was written and said that certain issues such as "offsets", the visit to the defense industry and the spillovers to Denel, have been omitted.

The Chair said that the delay in tabling the report was due to the "many meetings" the committee members had been engaged in since their return from the UK last July. He observed that while circulating the report, there had not been any complaints about delays or how the report was written. This was the first opportunity to hold a meeting to discuss this report.

Mr Louw (ANC) felt that Ms Taljaard's comments were unfair since the purpose of the tour was merely exposure to certain issues and not to take decisions on those issues to which Ms Taljaard had referred.

Mr Kgauwe (ANC) pointed out that the Committee Clerk had compiled the report with no political influence in the matter, as he was apolitical belonging to no party. As such the duty of this committee is to adopt the report.

Ms Taljaard said that on tour the IFP and UDM delegates had expressed a number of reservations about the way the tour was conducted. In particular, there was more emphasis on offsets than on privatization, the objective of the tour.

She was surprised that the draft committee report did not refer to these reservations. On 12 January she had written to the Chair about her concern that the report had not mentioned the emphasis on offsets and industrial participation. The report should have stated that the reason for the trip was not privatization. The emphasis had been on offsets as was shown during the meetings with British Aerospace and Rolls Royce.

The Chair said that he had no problem with the issue of Ms Taljaard's objections but the position of the delegation was communicated to the British hosts that they were not there to discuss offsets.

Mr Frolick (UDM) said that he agreed with the sentiments expressed by the Chair. The delegation was articulate on the purpose of the tour, which was not to take decisions on offsets.

Mr Kgauwe pointed out that after the Chair's explanation, the issue of offsets should not dominate this discussion.

Ms Taljaard agreed that the delegation had made it clear that it had no decision-making capacity. However since the Committee has an oversight duty over Denel, "we need to discharge our oversight over the Denel dimension". She said the committee should not be silent where it sees areas of concern regarding Denel and should note that in "our" report. She said the report should indicate that the Ministry of Defense, British Aerospace and Royce Rolls hosted the delegation.

Mr Louw said that what was being discussed made him apprehensive and confused. The committee should merely decide to adopt the report or not. As far as he was concerned, what was contained in the report "reflected what we did in the UK".

Mr Mohlala (ANC) said that the report was narrative and did not contain any decision-making recommendations. If any disagreement arises, the members should discuss them or make a better draft.

Mr Kgauwe felt that any decision-taking should appear in a separate report. The committee clerk was not politically affiliated and as such he would like to see the report without political connotations.

Mr van Jaarsveld (NNP) thought the delegates should have sat down immediately after the trip to look at areas of disagreement and come to this committee with a report that was complete. He suggested that the delegates discuss the report before presenting it to the committee.

Mr Maphalala (ANC) pointed out that since the report had been circulated, it would have been correct procedure for committee members to inform the Chair about those parts of the report they disagreed with. This meeting should be discussing the report not Ms Taljaard's complaints. The Chair had made it clear that the study tour did not include the powers she was raising.

The Chair pointed out that the meeting need not be tense. The report is not accused of being fraudulent. In his introductory remarks he had stated that the report does not have recommendations. For that reason members of the delegation should take their experiences to their parties. Questions of interpretation become a party issue. He confirmed that Ms Taljaard had written a letter to him and wondered whether the committee should agree with her observations. On the report itself, he thought it was a factual report that reported the daily activities of the report.

Ms Taljaard said that it was problematic that the delegation had not had the opportunity to discuss the report which was correct procedure. There are areas in the report she had picked up and she would be happy to discuss them with the delegation that went to the UK.

Mr Louw observed that it seemed the people who went on the tour had different mandates. The brief of the tour was not to discuss offsets but to provide exposure.

Mr Mohlala suggested they take cognizance of the report and adopt it. "This is not the place for people to try and lobby us."

Mr Maphalala referred to Ms Taljaard's comment where she had said the secretary did not have the responsibility to compile this report. He said the secretary was expected to capture all the activities that took place during the tour. Members of the tour must lead the committee and tell "us" what transpired in the tour.

Mr Kgauwe felt that Ms Taljaard should apologise for saying the secretary has no functionary mandate to compile the report. It was an insult to Parliament for saying that because his trip was paid for by Parliament.

Mr van Jaarsveld argued that the delegation should have sorted out their problems about the report before coming to this meeting. To be subjected to an hour of wasted time was problematic.

The Chair summarized by saying there is not strong dissent to the report. If there is sufficient consensus, the report can be adopted.

Ms Taljaard added that where disagreements in interpretation arise, they should point them including the British Ministry of Defense and the issue of offsets.

The Chairperson pointed out that where offsets had transpired, the delegation made it clear that that was not their brief.

Mr Kgauwe expressed fear that Ms Taljaard was leading them to a situation where they would admit that the motive of the trip was based on offsets.

The Chairperson said the interpretation of the trip should be left to the respective parties. He asked whether Ms Taljaard had a problem with that.

Ms Taljaard said she would be satisfied if the report states that the purpose of the trip was privatization and that this committee would avoid meeting with defence service organizations in future.

The Chair said that it should be put on record that this committee is not mandated to deal with offsets. He pointed out that invitations had been circulated shortly before the trip, not giving them enough time to scrutinize them. However, during the trip they had maintained their integrity and made it clear to their hosts what their purpose was.

Mr Frolick supported the Chairperson's last statement. He believed Ms Taljaard's statement put a certain interpretation on the visit that could have detrimental diplomatic consequences. He asked if it was necessary to add in her suggestion to the report.

Mr Mohlala said he was getting the feeling that there was a malicious intention to damage the delegation. He suggested adopting the report instead of amending it.

Ms Taljaard said she would be happy as long as the invitation from the Defense Diversification Agency is attached to the report.

Mr Frolick said that the invitation will be on record and there was no reason to attach it to the report.

The Committee decided not to amend the report but to adopt it as is.

Appendix
PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
DRAFT PROGRAMME FOR 2001


Wednesday, 21 February 2001


11:00 - 13:00


Discussion and adoption of study tour reports


Tuesday, 27 February 2001


11:00 - 13:00


Briefing by Department of Public Enterprises on Programme of Action


Wednesday, 28 February 2001


11:00 -13:00


Briefing on Energy Policy and Eskom Conversion Bill


Wednesday, 7 March 2001


11:00 - 13:00


Briefing by Transnet


Wednesday, 14 March 2001


11:00 - 13:00


Briefing by Spoornet and Metrorail


Wednesday, 28 March 2001


11:00 - 13:00


Briefing by Portnet and SAA


Wednesday, 4 April 2001


11:00 - 13:00


Briefing by Freight Dynamics and Petronet


LEAVE PERIOD: 09-13 APRIL 2001
CONSTITUENCY: 16 APRIL - 4 MAY 2001


Wednesday, 9 May 2001


11:00 - 13:00


Briefing by Denel


Wednesday, 16 May 2001


11:00 - 13:00


Briefing by Telkom IPO


Wednesday, 23 May 2001


11:00 - 13:00


Briefing on Regulating of Industry Bill


Wednesday, 30 May 2001


11:00 - 13:00


Discussion on the Budget

 

 

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: