Agreement between RSA & European Atomic Energy Community for Co-operation on the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy: follow-up meeting

This premium content has been made freely available

Mineral Resources and Energy

13 October 2020
Chairperson: Mr S Luzipo (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

10 Jun 2020

Agreement between RSA & European Atomic Energy Community for Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy

The Portfolio Committee met with the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) on a virtual platform to discuss the adoption of an agreement between the Republic of South Africa and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM).

The DMRE’s presentation was the third time it was being shared with the Committee, and some Members were impatient with the presenter as they felt the Department was repeating what was already known. However, the Department responded that no drastic changes had been expected from the presentation, because at the previous meeting it had clearly stated that it was satisfied with the agreement and therefore the purpose of the meeting was to provide feedback on a few matters that the Committee had requested it to address. Among these were the issues around the implications of the agreement.

The Department clearly outlined that the agreement did not have any negative implications. In fact, it had numerous positive prospects. These included the sharing of knowledge about nuclear energy, the handling of nuclear waste, and even employing nuclear energy to key sectors of the economy like agriculture and health. The presentation also described the terms of conduct, especially when a party’s agreement was terminated. One of the stipulations was that if the agreement was terminated, the contracts that would have been made during its validity remained functional. The Department concluded by recommending the Committee to approve the agreement.

Committee Members expressed concerns about how skills development would include “black” South Africans, since most companies in the energy sector were owned by “white” capital. They also expressed concern about how the nuclear energy agreement affected the sovereignty of South Africa, and how it possibly affected its relations with the country’s immediate neighbours. There was also an enquiry about the financial implications of the agreement.

The final verdict was the adoption of the agreement, although the EFF supported it with caution, saying that while nuclear energy had numerous positive prospects for the country, the European countries that were involved supported “white monopoly capital,” which was against the party’s political ideals.

The Committee used the remaining time to reflect on issues that had arisen during its previous oversight visit. This segment of the meeting sparked tensions between Members, so that the Chairperson resolved to arrange a specific meeting to discuss their concerns. From the discussion, it was apparent that the both the preparation and the administration of the oversight visit had not gone according to the expectations of Members. The Chairperson expressed concern about the challenges the Committee had experienced in trying to obtain approval for oversight.

 

However, matters that set the precedent for discussion had been around how Members conducted themselves around each other, and the security that was provided during the oversight week. Some were not happy with the way they were treated, and called for an equal opportunity to express themselves. On the matter of security, while the DA Member felt the security that was provided to the Committee was unnecessary and unrepresentative of a “Parliament of the People,” ANC Members argued that it was necessary, given the dangerous and illegal mines that were being visited.   

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Committee Secretary presented and apology from Mr Gwede Matashe, Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, and said he was attending the National Coronavirus Command Council meeting.

The Chairperson highlighted that the matter that was being dealt with in the meeting was not new to the Committee. He asked that after addressing the core purpose of the meeting, the Committee had to debrief on the oversight visit that they had recently embarked on. He explained that this additional session was going to allow Members to express how they felt about the preparations of the oversight visit.

Since the presentation had been shared with the Committee before, the Chairperson advised the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) to focus on the main issues that the Committee requested it to address in the previous meeting. These issues included the implications of the agreements with the EURATOM to South Africa.

DMRE Presentation

Mr Thabo Mokoena, Director-General, DMRE, thanked the Chairperson for awarding the Department the opportunity to provide feedback on the issues that the Committee had raised. The purpose of the presentation was to persuade the Portfolio Committee to approve the agreement between South Africa and the EURATOM, as well as the government of South Africa’s co-operation mainly for the “Peaceful uses of Nuclear Energy,” as presented in Section 231 (2) of the Constitution of South Africa.

Mr Zizamele Mbambo, Deputy Director General (DDG), DMRE, outlined the key issues that were going to be discussed. Despite consensus that the presentation was going to focus on feedback and not repeat what had been shared before, the Department found itself being asked by Members of the Committee what was new in their presentation.

Mr K Mileham (DA) interjected a few minutes after the presentation started, and said he had listened to the presentation twice before and that he was failing to identify any new developments from it. His concern was that in the previous meeting, the Committee had delayed its decision because it was awaiting new developments from the Department. He impatiently asked if they were going to get to the new developments, or if they were going to listen to another recap of the previous meeting.

Apart from the concerns raised by Mr Mileham, the Department’s presentation had four key issues. These were:

  • The strategic importance of the agreement.
  • The implementation of the plan.
  • Non-compliance with the EURATOM agreement.
  • Recommendations.

Strategic importance

The Department proposed that the agreement enlarge the economic, scientific, and technical benefits between South Africa and the EURATOM countries. These included skills development in the nuclear energy sector, the use of nuclear energy in key sectors of the economy like agriculture and health, the sharing of knowledge on how to handle nuclear waste, emergency preparedness and response. It concluded that the agreement in question prepared a favourable foundation for cooperation between South Africa and the EURATOM in the field of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Implementation plan

The Department proposed that an instrument of ratification was going to be arranged with the depository, and that this was going to be with the support of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO). It also mentioned that the EURATOM internal procedures had been completed and that they were ready to begin negotiations on the administrative arrangements.

Non-compliance

Here, the Department outlined the terms of conduct between the interested parties. This included the termination of the agreement if interested parties violated the provisions of the agreement. Another noteworthy clause in this section was that the termination of agreements did not affect the contracts that would have been made during the period of its validity.

Recommendations

The Department persuaded Parliament to approve the agreement, especially considering the benefits that it proposed this would bring to the country.

After the presentation, Mr Mokoena reiterated that the agreement did not pose any negative implications to the country. In fact, it brought along numerous positive prospects.

The Chairperson thanked the Department, and opened the meeting for discussion.

Discussion

Ms N Hlonyana (EFF) asked if the skills development anticipated to follow the adoption of the nuclear energy agreement would be exclusive to “white” South Africans, since most companies in the energy sector were owned by this population group. Did the DMRE have measures in place to ensure that “black” South Africans were included in this nuclear energy programme?

Mr Mileham maintained his earlier enquiry, and claimed that the presentation was no different from what had been presented on 10 June. He asked the DMRE to provide a precise outline of changes that had occurred from when the Committee had met in February and June.

Mr V Zungula (ATM) asked if South Africa was going to enter into bilateral agreements with any of the EURATOM members. He expressed concern about South Africa’s regional relations on the continent, and asked how neighbouring countries viewed South Africa’s adoption of nuclear energy. Would bilateral agreements with the EURATOM members affect South Africa’s sovereignty?

Mr M Wolmarans (ANC) said that although the background of the presentation remained the same as what had been presented in the past, he was concerned about the financial implications of the agreement. Since the DMRE claimed that the government was in the process of developing legislation for the creation of a fund for the purposes of adopting nuclear energy, he asked how much progress had been made in this regard, especially in liaising with the National Treasury.

DMRE’s response

Before asking his team to respond to questions asked by the Committee, Mr Mokoena indicated that at the last meeting, the DMRE had confirmed that it was satisfied with the agreement, so no changes were expected for the current meeting. He also explained that the Committee had directed the DMRE to check if the agreement was in line with its programme. The purpose of the current meeting, therefore, was to provide feedback and confirmation that the agreement did not transgress the stipulations of the South African Constitution and other pieces of legislation. He also confirmed that the agreement did not have any negative implications, but had prospects for numerous positive outcomes.

Mr Mbambo’s response to Ms Hlonyana was that the nuclear programme in South Africa was government driven, so there were improvements in terms of opening the sector to “black” professionals. He also confirmed that during this development of the nuclear programme in South Africa, the government had drafted a strategy to ensure that there would be equal access to employment opportunities in the sector. He alluded to the diversity of leaders in the entities concerned with the nuclear programme as evidence of inclusivity in the sector. He said the strategy to ensure the equal representation of everyone in the nuclear energy sector was enhanced by university programmes that trained individuals in this field, and institutions in the EURATOM countries that created opportunities for South Africans to train there.

Mr Mbambo also agreed with Mr Mokoena’s response to Mr Mileham, and added that a notable change in the past three months was the DMRE’s efforts to evaluate the market appetite for nuclear energy. Since the last meeting, the DMRE had issued a request for information about the 2.5 Megawatt (MW) nuclear programme, which in turn had helped the Department to gather information on various interested parties and how they proposed to participate in various initiatives in the nuclear energy programme.

In response to Mr Zungula’s concerns, Mr Mbambo said it was important to remember that South Africa already had agreements with some EURATOM countries. France was one such country, as evidenced by the leading role French companies had played in the construction of the Koeberg nuclear power station. He commented that should other EURATOM countries display interest in engaging in bilateral agreements with South Africa, the DMRE would consider these requests under the broader framework of the South Africa-EURATOM agreement under discussion.

Mr Mbambo also responded that South Africa had not tested its decision to engage in an agreement with the EURATOM with other African countries. This was because the stage at which the agreement was in did not warrant such a move, and that South Africa as a sovereign state did not require the consent of neighbouring states to engage in the EURATOM agreement.

In response to Mr Wolmarans’ concerns, he said significant progress had been made with the Fund Bill, and that it had already been discussed with the National Treasury. The Fund Bill had been discussed with the cluster of DGs who, upon making recommendations on it, would then relay it to the Cabinet. It was anticipated that the Fund Bill would be approved by the end of the financial year so that it could proceed for public consultation.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Mokoena and Mr Mbambo for their responses, and asked Committee Members to share what they deemed to be a plausible decision on the proposed agreement.

Further discussion

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC) pointed out that the DMRE had adequately responded to concerns about risking the sovereignty of South Africa in the agreement, so he proposed that the agreement be adopted.

Mr Wolmarans supported Mr Mahlaule’s suggestion, and proposed that the agreement be adopted.

Ms Hlonyana said nuclear energy was important to South Africa and confirmed that she, on behalf of the EFF, agreed with the adoption of the EURATOM agreement although she emphasised that this was done with great caution. She pointed out that despite the positive outcomes that nuclear energy seemed to have for South Africa in the future, the EURATOM countries, according to her, were among those that supported “white monopoly capital.” For that reason, her decision was made with extra caution.

The Chairperson acknowledged the proposed decisions made by the Committee Members, and invited more suggestions from the Committee.

There were no responses in this regard, so he concluded that the Portfolio Committee was going to make the necessary recommendations to adopt the agreement. He thanked Mr Mokoena and Mr Mbambo for their cooperation and said that although the final decision had been made, they were not released from the meeting, as it was still in progress.

Debriefing on preparations for oversight visits

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee had to debrief on the oversight visits that had been conducted in the past month. There were matters that needed to be resolved, and these included the Committee’s applications to conduct oversight visits. He said there were numerous challenges in obtaining oversight approval for the DMRE partly because of the importance of these sectors to the South African economy. He also pointed out that the DMRE presented a myriad of challenges which possibly required a full time Committee to address them. However, considering the events that had transpired during oversight week, he did not want to impose his judgment but wanted every Member to express themselves. Although an apology had already been made for administration challenges, he felt that Members had to share their opinions about what happened during the visits. He encouraged them to be patient with each other.

Committee Members’ responses

Mr Mileham replied that whilst he appreciated the security that had been provided, especially on the Sunday when they visited a mine that he did not feel safe in, he felt that in the days that followed the Committee did not need the maximum police escort that it had received. He suggested that in future, the Committee had to revise how it implemented security measures. He proposed that instead of being escorted from the hotel to the site, the police could wait for the Committee at the site when they arrived.

Mr Mileham expressed discomfort in the way police vehicles had forced citizens’ vehicles off the road, and blocked intersections so that vehicles carrying Members of Parliament could pass uninterrupted. He lamented that the South African Parliament was one for the people, and not VIPs. He urged the Committee to act accordingly, and this included earnestly obeying the rules of the road. He was also disappointed by the presence of firing squad vehicles in the fleet of vehicles that escorted the Committee, and suggested that these vehicles were specifically meant for responding to crime situations. 

Mr Mileham also expressed disappointment at the lack of punctuality by Members on the day the Committee left Tshwane. Despite being informed of the time of departure from the hotel beforehand, many Members delayed boarding the vehicles, which in turn resulted in an hour’s delay in their arrival at the oversight venue. He said that not only was this disrespectful to fellow Committee Members, but was also disrespectful to the people that the Committee had arranged to meet.

He referred to incidents in Northam, particularly the matter concerning the absence of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at a mine they had visited, which he believed could have been handled differently. Firstly, he pointed out that the Committee had no direct oversight over Northam. Secondly, the programme had been finalised very late in the day, so it was unfair for the Committee to berate the company for not producing the CEO at such short notice. This was especially so, considering that with limited time to prepare for the Committee’s arrival, the company had managed to assemble key players in the company like the director, regional manager and mine manager, who had the capacity to respond to questions posed by the Committee. Given how Members had interacted with the company’s representatives, he asked Members to be mindful of how they demanded respect because respect was earned.

Finally, he pleaded with the Chairperson to give everyone equal opportunities to express themselves. He referred to an incident during the oversight visits where other Members were allowed to express their opinions while he was silenced before adequately expressing his opinion. He said this was biased and unacceptable. He claimed that this was a recurring tendency among Committee Members, especially if one Member had opinions that opposed those of the majority.

Ms V Malinga (ANC) said the Committee had had a fruitful oversight week, despite the unfavourable weather on the Sunday they had carried out visits. She applauded the Committee’s secretaries for organising security for the Committee during its visits. She was pleased by how the Committee was escorted, because it was public property. The areas that were being visited were incredibly dangerous, and for that reason she appreciated the security that had been provided. She requested the Chairperson to extend the Committee’s appreciation specifically to the firing squad. She explained that when an entity was assigned to escort people, it was expected to go above and beyond to protect them. She suggested that issues concerning the Northam visit, and how Committee Members had treated each other, should be reserved for when the Committee dealt with the oversight report.

Mr Mahlaule agreed with Ms Malinga, and said that as requested by the Chairperson, he was going to comment only on the preparations for the oversight visits. He pointed out that the oversight visit in discussion was mostly on mining, and not the energy sector. When the Committee applied for oversight, it had included energy specifically to visit PetroSA. He explained that this application had been amended because of time issues and clashes of sittings. However, he insisted that arrangements had to be made to continue oversight in the area that was being visited to cover the energy sector. It was not ideal to treat the Department of Mineral Resources separately from the Department of Energy, because these sectors were in the Committee’s portfolio. He pointed out that other Committees in Parliament were always on oversight visits without any questions, but when it came to the Portfolio Committee of the DMRE, there was general unwillingness by the authorities to allow the Committee to carry out its duties. He claimed that this was evidenced by the poor preparations for the oversight visits. He commented that nothing went smoothly during the visits except on the occasions when the staff operated without the support of the Parliament. He expressed appreciation for their efforts in trying to make the visits as comfortable as possible, and extended his gratitude to them.

Mr Mahlaule suggested an attempt to formulate a “Committee view” around the treatment of the Portfolio Committee by whoever gave approval for oversight programmes. The Chairperson could not do this on behalf of the Committee, because he risked being viewed as someone who was simply transmitting his opinions.

In response to Mr Mileham’s concerns about the CEO in the Northam mine, Mr Mahlaule said that he was going to comment on that when the Committee dealt with the oversight report. However, he stressed that he could not help but comment on security. He explained that “it’s either you ask for security or you don’t,” because the security cluster operated in specific ways to ensure that its clients were safe. Therefore, it was not within the Committee’s powers to instruct the security on how to carry out their jobs, as they were specially trained to operate in a specific manner. He recommended that the Committee had to decide beforehand whether they wanted security. For instance, in visits to illegal mines, were there were explosives and guns, and the Committee had to decide as representatives of a “non-elite Parliament” that they were not going to acquire security services because if they did, they could not interfere with how the security operated. Given these circumstances, he said the Committee could not “play to the gallery” by claiming that security was acting in an undesirable way, while in actuality it was acting according to its protocol.

Mr Mileham interjected and called for order through the Chairperson.

The Chairperson asked Mr Mileham what the order was for.

Mr Mileham replied that to say the Committee was playing to the gallery was both unacceptable and unparliamentary. Mr Mahlaule’s statement implied that he was playing to the gallery.

The Chairperson responded that Mr Mahlaule had not referred to any name, and asked Mr Mileham to explain which rule in Parliament addressed implication by others.

Mr Mileham asked Mr Mahlaule through the Chairperson to withdraw his statement.

The Chairperson maintained that there was no evidence of Mr Mahlaule implicating Mr Mileham in his statement. He explained that Mr Mahlaule had said as a Committee they were playing to the gallery, and not Mr Mileham.

Mr Mileham accepted the Chairperson’s ruling, and asked to address a different point.

The Chairperson replied that he had to wait until Mr Mahlaule had finished making his point.

Mr Mileham said he thought Mr Mahlaule had finished making his point.

The Chairperson said it was unfair for Mr Mileham to interfere with Mr Mahlaule’s time to make his comments, and then assume that he was finished. He asked Mr Mahlaule to continue with his points.

Mr Mahlaule replied that as an obedient Committee Member, he knew that when an order was made, he had to stop.

The Chairperson interjected and requested Mr Mahlaule to make his comments promptly.

Mr Mahlaule said that as the Portfolio Committee of the DMRE, they were not competent to instruct another government entity to do their job. He concluded that it was up to the Committee to decide whether it needed security.

The Chairperson acknowledged the points that had been raised, but said he had been afraid that Members were going to comment on administrative matters, although they were supposed to address issues concerning the preparations for oversight. He appealed to them to reserve their comments about administrative issues for the day of the oversight report. He reminded them that even after accepting the apology for to poor preparations, they had requested a meeting to discuss the issue. He explained that although an oversight report was meant to address the objectives of the visit and its achievements, Members were within their rights to express other concerns that may have arisen during the visits. He agreed that there were certain issues in Parliament, regardless of which Committee, which required Members to express themselves.

The Chairperson also explicitly said he was not going to respond to Mr Mileham’s previous comments. He reflected on a ruling that he made at the previous meeting, at which Mr Mileham had requested the Committee Secretary to record them for further discussion in the Committee. Although this was not procedural, the Chairperson said he was committed to discuss them at the following meeting. He added he wished to discuss the conduct of all Members, including himself, as he also wanted to express himself. This included evaluating whether other Members recognised that there was a Chairperson of the Committee or not.

The Chairperson said that now that it had been established that Members did not have problems with the preparations, he requested the Committee to rest the matter. He then asked Mr Mileham to proceed with his point.

Mr Mileham thanked the Chairperson, and pointed out that according to Regulations 176 and 185 of the National Road Traffic Management Act, blue lights were permitted for use only in times of emergency. It was therefore unlawful for the Committee’s security escorts to use them.

Ms Malinga interjected in isiZulu, and said Mr Mileham should have stayed behind.

The Chairperson pleaded with Mr Mileham to reserve his comment for when the Committee sat for the oversight report. He acknowledged his opinion, but explained that if he was to respond to it in the current meeting, he was going to indirectly invite more comments from other Members. It was therefore best to discuss it in the following meeting.

Mr Mileham replied that he thought it was a logistical issue that could be discussed in the current platform.

The Chairperson accepted his opinion, but maintained that it was not meant for the current platform. He promised to make a strong request to Parliament to arrange a meeting to discuss the oversight report with the Committee in the following week.

Both Mr Mahlaule and Mr Mileham agreed to this.

The Chairperson urged Members to take note of the points that they had made, because they would be allowed in the meeting for the oversight report.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

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: