Committee Annual Report 2005: discussion

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
29 March 2006
COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2005: DISCUSSION

Chairperson: Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Report on the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) (see Appendix A)
Report on the Briefing on the Sudan (see Appendix B)
Session Report: January to December 2005

SUMMARY
The Committee discussed its annual report for 2005. Members expressed grave concern that the Committee was not being allowed to go on international study tours. This they felt was due to the Committee being marginalised by administrative officials who did not understand international affairs and the importance of the Committee. Members also expressed frustration that the Committee was not taken seriously because it did not often consider legislation and that Members were not given the respect deserved by parliamentarians. The Committee resolved to approach the Speaker of Parliament and others about its concerns.

MINUTES
Consideration of the minutes and annual report had been postponed from the last meeting to give Members an opportunity to go through them. It would be difficult to go through them copy by copy but it was agreed at that meeting that they would be considered, there being a particular concern that Members were not happy with the last minutes. The Committee considered these on the assumption that Members had read them.
A brief outline of how expenditure was incurred had been circulated to Members.

Ms M Mjobe (ANC) said the report contained too many repetitions. It should rather have a column for the resolution and another for the issues to be followed up. Quite a lot had been raised under the Chairperson’s remarks, largely referring to concerns about support from the Committee Section and the lack of support from officials and politicians. She was also concerned about the trips planned for Brazil, Sudan, the Ivory Coast and Palestine but which never happened and asked the reason why these had been declined. The Department encouraged the Committee to go on fact-finding missions. In principle the Foreign Affairs Committee’s oversight work should be more outside the country than in the boardrooms of Parliament. They had promised people they would visit their countries, but did not go and meanwhile the budget was almost used up. Priorities were not right.

Mr D Gibson (DA) agreed with Ms Mjobe, especially on the issue of Committee Section support. It was very unpleasant for staff members to read this sort of thing but salutary to have in the report. He wanted to know from the Chairperson what remedial steps had been put in place. Overseas study visits were very important for a Foreign Affairs committee. Every other committee had study trips but the one that should go, did not. These had to be in the business plan for the year. He proposed the Committee consider appointing a task group to discuss the matter with the House Chairperson. He would be happy to be of assistance to establish what to do to satisfy them about study visits and in particular motivate the visit to Brazil, which was one of the most important countries for South Africa.

Mr Gibson did not fully understand a section of the budget. According to the budget amounts spent totalled R475 000, partially made up of a credit to the consolidated fund of R131 000 sent back to the fund, which meant it was not spent. It was very odd to use that bookkeeping transfer of unspent money to say it was spent. It had not been spent, which was why it was taken away. The Committee had to pay for staff travel, was there another budget of which the committee did not spend R165 000 at all? The report stated that all but R4 000 had been spent but this was totally misleading. This should be amended to read specifically that the amounts credited to the consolidated revenue fund were forfeited because the study trips did not happen.

Mr Gibson further said the visit by the Czech Republic was reported, but not the Swaziland visit. Sometimes when the Committee had foreign guests they were not treated properly. Mr Gibson was the only Member of the South African Parliament at the lunch with the Swazi delegates and had to act as host. He felt that was very poor treatment. The Committee did not receive foreign delegates the way it was received in their countries.

Mr L Labuschagne (DA) added to the question of overseas visits. There were very few countries in the world that had representation in over a hundred countries like South Africa, which meant that South Africa was a major player in the international arena. The Committee was not giving due regard to this. The budget report had a number of typographical errors and March 2005 should read 2006. He would have liked more detail in the budget. He queried air travel and mileage claims. R15 000 was spent on catering, an average of R588 per meeting – a full lunch at the Marks Building would have cost the same. Something was wrong, either the Committee was being overcharged or it was wasting food and money. He was concerned about wastage.

Ms F Hajaig (ANC) endorsed Ms Mjobe’s remarks on the document; it was not nice to have a document that was not up to standard, and also agreed that too much food was being ordered, the money could be more wisely used elsewhere. One of the problems related to foreign trips was that Parliament and the decision-makers did not have a full understanding of the oversight work of the Committee. Ministers were confronting the Committee. Defence Minister Lekota asked why the Committee had not been to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to see what our troops were doing and what was happening in other parts of the world where our personnel were situated. There was a mindset that because the Committee did not deal with legislation it could not be taken seriously, and there was a need to do something about the perceptions. Referring to the financial report, she agreed a breakdown was needed of where the money was being spent, where people were going and the question of transfers to staff travel. A decision was taken that if a Committee Member travelled within South Africa, the Committee Section would pay for that person’s expenses.

Ms S Camerer (DA) wanted to demystify the report about the Committee Section, and asked for an explanation as to how it happened that the Committee were stopped from making the overseas trips.

The Chairperson clarified that with regard to staff transfers generally the principle was that the Committee paid for every staff member they took with them. The Committee Section paid for subsistence of the staff taken with on international travel. On domestic travel the Committee Section would pay for a staff member, but once international the Committee would have to pay for transport and accommodation; they would only pay subsistance. When the Committee went to Pretoria for the Xenophobia Workshop with the Human Rights Commission, the expenses were charged directly to the Committee’s own budget, including the mileage of any Member having to drive their own car, and that Member would have been compensated.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) asked for a breakdown.

The Chairperson responded that he had taken the matter up with the Committee Controller and the manager to try and see to it that members got the appropriate service. At the Joint Sitting with the Portfolio Committee on Defence they were all squeezed into one small office in spite of attempts to get a bigger venue.

The Chairperson said in terms of applications for overseas trips the Minister and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs had provided written motivation to Parliament and asked the House person responsible for international affairs to intervene. Mr Sithole explained his frustrations. The problem was the mindset of Parliament. All Committees must consider legislation and were asked whether an overseas trip was part of their annual plan and show a resolution of the Committee. Minutes had to be attached and they were asked whether the departmental strategic plan was discussed and that had to be submitted also, and whether they had approved the budget of the department. All this took time and by the time the target date came, there were no funds. He was struggling with internal problems.

The Chairperson explained that every application had had proper motivation. In some instances, Deputy Ministers had tried to persuade Parliament but were not successful. For the Israel application every piece of information requested was produced. Internal problems had to be sorted out. The Israel trip had been postponed because it meant Members would have been told on the Friday they were leaving on the Monday. Israel dissolved its Parliament before elections, thereby providing a political explanation. Mr Sithole wanted to take eight Members, but was told he could only take five. These were only some of the problems in the administration. The turnaround time in Parliament on a request was "so pathetic".

The Chairperson said the Department of Foreign Affairs had invited the Committee for the Brazil trip, and the Minister of Social Development led the South African delegation. The Department felt it was important for the Committee to go there, and the Director-General (DG) was also going. The Committee should have been part of that delegation but he was told that because the delegation was led by the Minister of Social Development it had nothing to do with Foreign Affairs and so the Committee could not go.

The Chairperson then referred to the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Workshop. The DGs of all relevant departments held a workshop in Port Elizabeth and had extended an invitation to the Committee, but he was told Members had to pay their own costs, Parliament would not pay for any Member to go to a workshop for Heads of Departments and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, even though they were dealing with NEPAD issues.

The Chairperson said an application had been made for the Sudan trip and all necessary arrangements had been made when he was told that Ramadan would complicate matters. This was complicated due to a lack of response from Parliament. If the time spent from the day the application was lodged and the response was reasonable, the Committee could have undertaken the trip.

The Chairperson responded to Mr Gibson’s experience with the guests from Swaziland. When international guests arrived it was not easy. He cited the instance of when the Sinn Fein President was here when the Committee was asked to host the lunch on that same day. This also happened with the Czech Republic. It took the insistence of the Deputy Secretary to get Parliament to agree that this Committee could host the dinner for the Czech delegation. The Chair of the NCOP and his delegation worked in the Czech Republic for a month or so and they gave him "a fantastic" reception.

The Chairperson responded to the question of overcharging for food. This was worked on a voucher system done by the Finance section of Parliament.

Ms Camerer thanked the Chairperson for the detailed explanations, which were most enlightening. She suggested the Committee decide now what trips it would like to go on so that by September they might be ready to go in view of bureaucratic delays.

The Chairperson responded that the draft programmes for Israel, Palestine, Sudan, Brazil and the United Nations General Assembly had already been submitted.

Mr Ramgobin was grateful for the Chairperson’s frank presentation of the ills confronting the Committee and proposed that the Committee should officially write to the Speaker, the Leader of Government Business and the Secretary of Parliament to complain. The Committee was being subjected to the arrogance of some official who was basically ignorant of the Committee and its role.

Ms N Gxowa (ANC) thought the Committee was responsible for foreign visitors that came to the country. She referred to the budget and felt a designated person from the Committee must verify all expenses.

Ms Mjobe asked whether claims for mileage were authorised by the Chairperson, and whether the Chairperson played any role in checking whether claims were genuine. The same applied to food, where far too much was being ordered. There was a way of checking on the orders and how much was being used.

The Chairperson clarified the issue of food. The secretaries looked at the total number of Members on the Committee and ordered that quantity every time. It appeared to be a standardised system.

Ms S Motubatse-Hounkpatin (ANC) asked for clarify whether money for international forums such as the Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum (SADC-PF) and the Inter-parliamentary Union (IPU) came from the Committee or from Parliament, because she found it difficult to understand that when they were travelling, the staff sometimes had better accommodation than Members. She agreed it was very embarrassing that Mr Gibson was the only member present with a full delegation from other countries, and it was also a pity that the Committee could not show off the best South African wines to its guests.

Ms Luthuli (ANC) expressed the view that she would have expected the Committee to be in the forefront when receiving international visitors, such as Kofi Annan. It appeared that the Committee was being marginalised, which was surprising as it was highly respected and recognised internationally. Why was it so underemployed? She agreed on the issue of wine. International guests had to drink water in Cape Town where we had the best vineyards and best wines. Those should be opportunities to advertise. The frustrations in attempting international visits were mind-boggling and should not occur.

Mr B Holomisa (UDM) supported the proposal that the Committee approach the presiding officers. He suggested that in line with the proposal the Committee should seriously consider lobbying or influencing the Presidency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Committee’s vision and mission should be revisited and if need be should be referred to the Caucus of the ruling party. The administrators were undermining foreign policies such as NEPAD and others that were priorities of the government.

Mr J Seremane (DA) asked who chose the caterers. He supported Mr Gibson’s proposal for a working team to support the Chairperson and have more power to break the red tape.

Ms Hajaig felt something was very wrong that so much food was going to waste, and agreed that something else was going on here. The Deputy Speaker had actually scolded her and asked why the Committee was not going on study tours because the money was not being utilised and was going back into the fund. This was a contradiction and there was a need to challenge what was going on in Parliament. When the Foreign Affairs Department invited Members of the Committee to attend a function at the beginning of the year, the situation was that somehow members of staff were given priority. Members of Parliament were not seated but officials were. It appeared that some officials were doing things for themselves and not furthering the interests of Parliamentarians. There was a need to take up this challenge if the current Parliament was to function effectively.

Mr Ramgobin gave an example. Last month, at the Ambassadors meeting in Somerset West, two Members were in the embarrassing situation that staff members were comfortably seated where MPs should have been sitting. He had to draw attention to this fact before seats were found for them. There was a principle involved. Certain responsibilities had to be carried with dignity; it was undignified for staff to do that.

Mr Labuschagne said it would be interesting to find out how many overseas visits other Committees had made. The Committee’s role should be defined within the context of the international parliamentary situation. The role should be defined in the same way as the British Foreign Affairs Committee. He proposed the Committee should establish a small team to get that information and look at three or four big, middle, and small countries to see their approach so that this Committee could operate on the same level. The British Foreign Affairs Committee had been to South Africa twice recently.

The Chairperson explained that the problem in Parliament was the mindset. When a decision was made that committees could not travel overseas it applied to all committees irrespective. The Committee did not have any legislation to consider yet this was most often the reason why committees were not allowed to travel. The Committee could not be bound by a blanket decision. There was a need to change the mindset.

The Chairperson said the caterers were chosen on the basis of where a meeting was being held. He will ask the staff to look at the quantity and challenge them to be more economical.

The Chairperson felt that Members not being given the necessary attention at functions should be taken up with the Director General of Foreign Affairs. This was a function hosted by the Minister and if Members felt something was amiss he would ask them to accord Members the proper status. It was embarrassing for Members to have to argue about where they were sitting.

The Chairperson responded to the question on who paid for international trips. When there was international engagement and Parliament was invited, Parliament paid. The Committee paid for its direct trips. Parliament informed the Department of Foreign Affairs and the department in the relevant country made the arrangements.

The Chairperson further explained that the Committee was double the size of other committees and that was not taken into consideration when the budget allocation was made. Hopefully this would change if the mindset started to appreciate the nature of the Committee’s work. It was not about the Committee being marginalised but the mindset of people who did not understand international affairs. The Secretary raised a very important issue that affected Members directly. When Members received an invitation and were asked to confirm acceptance it often took too long to get the necessary information from them. This added to the problems.

The Chairperson would ask the Finance section to provide a breakdown of everything they had paid for and in doing so to make copies of the claims. In the previous Parliament they went to China but the Committee had no money at all. They were told they had no money at all, but it was later discovered that they had in fact not even spent half of the budget.

The Committee would follow up these issues.

The meeting adjourned.

Appendix A
REPORT ON THE SAHARAWI ARAB DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC (SADR)

On the 14-03-2006, the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs received a briefing by Ambassador Mr. OUBI BACHIR on the status of events in his country, the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic.

On the 15 September 2004 South Africa gave formal recognition to SADR as an independent state.

The briefing consisted primarily of the challenges and difficulties the Saharawi people are encountering in their struggle for independence. This territory was first colonized by Spain and then by Morocco. It is the last colony left on the African Continent.

The International Court of Justice ruled that the people of SADR had a right to self- determination "through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory". The UN was to hold a referendum whereby the people could decide. After a protracted process Morocco has unilaterally terminated the process.

It is of concern that the United Nations Security Council is dragging its feet in finding a just solution for the plight of the Saharawi people. Most of the Arab States have also failed to recognize the SADR and therefore the suffering of the Saharawi people.

The countries of the European Union have failed to recognise the SADR and have not assisted in finding a just solution and ignored Human Rights concerns.

South Africa has provided sorely needed Humanitarian Aid to the people of SADR. However much more needs to be done to assist the legitimate struggle of the Saharawi people. South Africa should put this issue on the table of all Multilateral and Bilateral fora for constructive engagement.

Partnership between progressive civil society of countries could bring to the fore the plight of these people. South Africa could assist in promoting the building of an international consensus around the recognition of the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), the organs of the African Union; especially the Pan African Parliament can play an important role in this regard.

The South African delegation to PAP should request a debate on this issue taking into account that a number of African States have also failed to recognise the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic.

It is incumbent upon us as a peace and freedom-loving nation to assist in finding a just solution for the suffering people of SADR. All they are asking for is the right to be an independent state, free from the shackles of Morocco.

Appendix B
REPORT ON THE BRIEFING ON THE DEVELOPMENTS IN SUDAN

Reworked

The Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs received a briefing on the Sudan by DDG Duarte and Ambassador Makhubela of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Sudan is the largest country in Africa sitting in the top right hand corner of the continent with a population of 40.1 million people.

There has been a civil war raging between the North and the South of the country for some 21years. A ceasefire was finally signed and there exists now a government of National Unity, as part of the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

To assist with the development and reconstruction of South Sudan (which was sorely neglected), the AU Ministerial Committee requested South Africa to take the reins in the Post Conflict Reconstruction of that territory. In that capacity South Africa has engaged in a number of initiatives to facilitate the raising of the necessary financial and related support to rebuild Sudan. Two initiatives of Minister Dlamini-Zuma before the Donor Conference in Oslo, Norway resulted in positive results.

In March 2006, donor nations confirmed a package of US$4.5 billion for Sudan over three years. However a study undertaken indicated that at least US$7.9 billion is needed to rebuild basic infrastructure and social services in Southern Sudan and affected areas. Donor countries want to see positive movement in the resolution of conflict in Darfur before focusing financial support in the reconstruction of Southern Sudan. It is important that the development of South Sudan continues unabatedly and should not be linked to the peace process in Darfur.

According to the agreement, the CPA, oil revenues are to be shared equally between North and South. However the Petroleum Commission is not functioning yet and it is not clear if 50% of oil revenue is indeed reaching the South.

The situation in Darfur appears to have taken a turn for the worse. The Janjaweed militias have been joined by rebels from Chad and are conducting attacks into Chad. It is estimated that 300 000 people have been killed and some 2 million displaced, since 2003.

The AU Peace and Security Council has sent a Peace keeping force to Darfur but now sees the necessity for UN troop deployment to the region, to augment the efforts of the African Union. Khartoum is not happy with the UN deployment at this time. However it was agreed that 10,000 UN troops will monitor the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. South Africa has currently 314 SANDF and 125 SAPS members in Sudan, as part of the Peace Keeping Mission. However a ceasefire has to be in place before UN troops can enter Sudan.

Effective work in Darfur by the United Nations Security Council has been crippled, because the five permanent members cannot reach consensus.

The DDG: Ambassador Duarte and the Chief Director: Ambassador Makhubela felt that it would be important for the portfolio committee to actually go to Sudan and experience the complexities of the situation. They said that, they needed the support of this committee in this very difficult and complex issue of promoting peace, stability and development in the Sudan.