Chairperson, I want to thank hon members who contributed to this debate for their thoughtful contributions. I believe that most hon members have understood that we can't continue to oscillate around whatever the economic cycles deliver to us. For example, when we are in the midst of a bad cycle like we are at the moment, we have unemployment of 25,2%. But when we are at the height of a boom as we were before the recession in 2008, unemployment never got below 22,8%.
I also think that hon members have understood that what we need to do is to bring about structural changes in our economy. We need to place our economy on a structurally different growth path, one which can create much more decent work for our people. It is in that context that I think hon members have also understood what the Industrial Policy Action Plan 2, Ipap2, has been crafting.
Ipap 2 is essentially contributing to this quest through its focus on value added activities. As I said in my speech, it was one very important imbalance that we have. Our consumption sectors grew about twice as fast as our production sectors. This is an unsustainable situation that we can't tolerate any longer.
Hon Winde asked what would have happened to jobs if we hadn't had the World Cup and so on. I think that's precisely the point - the main driver of our economic development now is our infrastructure programme. That's the main driver which is also our main countercyclical response, not just the World Cup, but all the other projects of infrastructure development.
The point is, though, that we have been getting too little industrial development opportunity that flows from that. It is precisely for that reason that we have identified a major change in the procurement regime. Work is under way to try and identify this much more clearly and to come up with clear steps that can be implemented. That is exactly why we want to change the procurement regime. Even from today's debate I realise that there is now sufficient consensus that the Ipap2 represents a way forward for us.
The challenge now is to implement it. It is exactly that challenge that I think is important for parliamentary oversight committees and this House. We have got a number of things that we do in trying to achieve great implementation: internal monthly oversight meetings; reporting to the cluster; reporting to Cabinet every six months; and so on. We also contribute to the new monitoring and evaluation process in government as well. What a number of colleagues realised here is that co-ordination is quite critical. That's co-ordination between the different national departments and agencies that are responsible for parts of the programme, and also co- ordination across the spheres of government. I think this House could pay a lot of attention to that aspect. We will approach that with the spirit of co-operative governance. In that regard, we will work constructively with any province, including those that are under other parties. For example, I don't know what the issues around the oil and gas centre are, but this is a province-specific programme. However, if there are ways in which we can support that, I'm sure one will find that our department will be forthcoming.
Furthermore, we can engage further in the training lay-off programme which has been raised by MEC Winde. However, I don't want to engage in the statistics debate around the training lay-off programme because I don't know all the facts involved. Let me just say that one of the most successful users of that programme was BMW South Africa, which became the first firm to invest again after the recession passed. The training lay-off was a way in which it skilled up its workers for the new investments.
We want to co-operate on the case of Mr Khuzwayo that was mentioned by hon Gamede. How can somebody walk into one small business agency and be told to go to another one or to go and attend another meeting somewhere else. That's where the collocation, the shared services, and all that, between the different agencies operating in the different spheres of government must take place. We must address that one.
We can work together on the issue of trade and trade promotion, just to give MEC Winde some comfort. Between 2000 and 2008 our trade with United Kingdom, UK, actually doubled, and then it cut by 40% in 2009. So, doubling it is not such a huge target; but it does require efforts on our part. More importantly, we want to change the structure of that trade. Too much of it is probably products and raw materials. We need to increase the value-added products there. Let's work together on that.
But, for goodness' sake, let us not think that the UK and the traditional markets of the North are the only places where we need to get involved. There are plenty of other places like, for example, Africa and our South- South trade. Let's get actively involved in all that. We'll work together with you.
We are prepared to work - as you have already indicated - on industrial development zones, IDZs. But let's understand what the department understands about IDZs. Industrial development zones in our law are areas where you get duty-free entry of components which you use for export of goods; you get the advantages of the concentrated infrastructure; and some other incentives. That's what an IDZ is. There are a whole lot of other issues like, for example, the governance of IDZs within provinces, municipalities and national government that we need to address, and plenty of other issues around the financing of IDZs. We can work on those; we can work on our studies; and we can identify possibilities.
However be very honest with communities when you start talking about these things. If you mean IDZs, say IDZs. If you mean export processing zones - those are areas where what you typically do is to suspend the labour law. I was up in Saldanha - on May Day actually - and I didn't detect any appetite among the people at the rally. I have to see a suspension of the labour law. Let me just say that we also, more often than not, don't think that the success of the IDZs around the world has been shown to be a real factor. This race for the bottom on labour conditions is not something that South Africa can get involved in in a sustainable manner. That has been established for a very long time. So, I'm afraid you'll have to win a national election if you want to turn IDZs into Export Processing Zones, EPZs, because we won't co-operate on that one.
Let me answer just one more point on the auto industry as I've got a little bit of time. Yes, it's true that the components manufacturing industry is much more job intensive. Even the figures that I gave you double the figures. Just to repeat: Of the three investments this year, R9 billion of the investment will sustain 3 500 jobs, but R4 billion investments in components sustaining 20 000 jobs will come of that. Lower investment, more jobs in components! But the relationship between the two is a critical one. If you don't have an original equipment manufacturer, OEM, base, you might have a components industry; that's a reality in South Africa.
Indeed, through some of the work that we have done we are deepening the local content. In the last four investments, the percentage of local components is well over 50%. I think it's nearly 60%. This is because we have a 20% automotive investment scheme, AIS, and a 30% for those who are prepared to go a step further. If you want to qualify for the AIS, you have to create more jobs and buy more locally. That's exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to use our tools to push the automotive manufacturers to acquire more components. Some of them are talking about coming together and acquiring a bigger base of common products. That is the sort of work we want to do.
Yes, we want to support the electric car and other green energy-intensive vehicles. Not just by one manufacturer, but by all of them. We want to position our motor industry so we are not producing the gas guzzlers of the world. However we are working with them on a number of projects. So these are the kinds of projects that we want to attract into South Africa. We are also moving in the direction of public transport vehicles. When we invest in public transport vehicles, we must make sure that those are actually manufactured in South Africa.
In conclusion, I think that the National Council of Provinces, NCOP, has got a very critical role to play. We will not be able to make the structural changes in our economy unless we achieve a higher level of co- ordination. That's for sure, that's for sure;
I keep telling everybody about what happened in the past. I'm not going to tell you the answer, but I'll pose the question: Which project was identified to be exactly the same work in Ipap 2 as in Ipap 1? There is one because some government department didn't do the work. We can't just do it like that. We have got to hold each other accountable. We are looking for a creative oversight that can follow our progress, identify areas where we are not achieving success, and then try to unblock those blockages. That's the work of oversight and that's what I want to encourage this House to do. Thank you very much. [Applause.]