PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

                             NEW MEMBER

                           (Announcement)

                          NOTICE OF MOTION

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

 (1)    Message from National Council of Provinces to National Assembly:
     Bills, as amended, passed  by  Council  on  25  February  2004  and
     transmitted for consideration of Council's amendments:


     (i)     South African Social Security Agency Bill [B  51D  -  2003]
             (National Assembly - sec 76)


     (ii)    Social Assistance Bill [B 57B - 2003] (National Assembly  -
             sec 76)


     The Bills have, in terms of Rule  274(1)(a),  been  placed  on  the
     Order Paper of the National Assembly for debate and decision.

 The vacancy which occurred owing to Mr G B D McIntosh vacating his seat
 with effect from 20 February 2004, had been filled with effect from  24
 February 2004 by the nomination of Mrs R van Aswegen.

 Report of Delegation to 7th Session  of  African,  Caribbean,  Pacific-
 European Union Joint Parliamentary Assembly, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,  12
 to 19 February 2004.


 The 7th Session of the African, Caribbean, Pacific-European Union Joint
 Parliamentary Assembly (ACP-EU JPA) met in Addis Ababa,  Ethiopia  from
 16 to 19 February 2004. As usual, the joint  plenary  was  preceded  by
 meetings of the ACP and Joint Bureaus (of which South Africa is  now  a
 member), of the ACP plenary and also of the three Standing Committees -
 on Political Affairs, on Economic Development, Finance and Trade and on
 Social Affairs and the Environment.


 The delegation consisted of Dr. Rob Davies and Ms Ntshadi  Tsheole.  We
 were accompanied by Mr Saul Pelle of the South African Embassy  to  the
 EU in Brussels  and  Mr  Mtutu  Masiza  of  Parliament's  International
 Relations Unit. Ahead of the JPA there was also a workshop on  Economic
 Partnership Agreements and  their  implications  for  the  Eastern  and
 Southern African region (of which Ethiopia, the host country, is part).
 This was an informal activity of the  Economic  Development  Committee,
 sponsored by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, at which Rob Davies made  an
 input.


 The 7th Session operated  according  to  the  new  rules  of  procedure
 adopted ahead of the 6th session. These provide for resolutions  to  be
 tabled via the Standing Committees with the  possibility  of  only  two
 "urgent resolutions" per session being tabled independently  on  topics
 agreed by the Joint Bureau. The motivation for this new procedure is to
 encourage the JPA to focus its attention on the common issues of ACP-EU
 relations, rather than the bilateral issues that have in the  past,  in
 practice, dominated JPA proceedings. It was agreed at the Joint  Bureau
 meeting held in Brussels in January that the "urgent resolutions" would
 be on "Cotton and other basic commodities: Problems encountered by  ACP
 countries" and "Damage caused by Cyclones in the Pacific, Indian  Ocean
 and Caribbean and the need for a rapid response to natural  disasters".
 This meant that the JPA proceedings were  largely  focused  on  generic
 rather than bilateral issues. Although the crisis  in  Haiti  was  also
 included on the agenda, the Joint  Bureau  agreed  to  an  exchange  of
 views, but no resolution. However, the discussion was  led  by  Caricom
 delegations, who argued in support of  the  Caricom  plan  calling  for
 dialogue,  but  rejecting  any  violent  overthrow  of   the   Aristide
 government.


 The  resolutions  emerging  from  the  Committees  were  on   "Conflict
 Resolution and Lasting Peace" (Political Affairs Committee);  "Economic
 Partnership Agreements"  (Economic  Affairs  Committee)  and  "Poverty,
 diseases and Reproductive health in ACP countries in the context of the
 ninth European Development Fund" (Social Affairs Committee). There  was
 a fair degree of consensus on the  first  and  the  third  reports  and
 resolutions, as well as on  the  two  urgent  resolutions.  There  was,
 however, a degree of disagreement on the EPA resolution. The resolution
 was adopted by the Committee with a majority made up by the ACP  voting
 together with the European PSE (socialist), Green and GUE (left) groups
 against  the  PPE  (conservative)  group.  The  PPE  indicated  in  the
 Committee that they would call for a vote in plenary by separate houses
 and would vote against the resolution emanating from the  Committee  if
 it were put unamended to the plenary. As the PPE has a majority in  the
 EU house, there  was  a  possibility  that  this  resolution  would  be
 defeated as was a resolution on the WTO post-Cancun at the 6th  session
 in Rome. This led to a process of negotiation, in which our  delegation
 participated at the request of the ACP Secretary General. A  compromise
 was eventually reached, which resulted in fudging clauses on additional
 funding to address restructuring and revenue losses  arising  from  the
 introduction of reciprocity, the  introduction  of  "Singapore  issues"
 into EPA negotiations and trade in  service  negotiations  in  the  EPA
 context allowing for the retention of the right  of  ACP  countries  to
 maintain public services in key areas. Although the original clauses on
 these issues were significantly "watered down" in the  compromise,  the
 aim was to leave space for further debates. The debate on  this  topic,
 during which we took the floor, was attended by EU trade  commissioner,
 Pascal Lamy. In his input, the Commissioner spoke of "reinforcement  of
 regional integration" being "a heart of EPAs". Since the  regions  that
 will be negotiating EPAs, particularly in Eastern and Southern  Africa,
 do not correspond either with any existing Regional Economic  Community
 or the AU defined region, a major challenge of aligning the EPA process
 with regional and continental initiatives clearly exists.  Commissioner
 Lamy also spoke of reciprocity in trade being  introduced  through  the
 EPA process in a "progressively and _harnessed manner".  Clearly  there
 are many issues here; including the  extent  of  reciprocal  duty  free
 opening up of ACP countries' markets to EU imports,  the  length  of  a
 transition to reciprocity, preserving the  rights  of  Least  Developed
 Countries to non-reciprocal duty free access to the EU, and the funding
 of adjustment costs by ACP countries. All of  these  issues  have  been
 taken up by the ACP side, as the input from Mauritian Minister Cuttaree
 for the ACP Council made clear. Differences, however,  exist  on  these
 and other issues. A view beginning to  emerge  from  discussions  among
 parliamentarians in the Southern Africa group (which in the EPA context
 will be the five SACU countries plus Mozambique, Angola  and  Tanzania)
 is that the issue of reciprocity has already been settled in our region
 by the fact that the  bilateral  Trade,  Development  and  Co-operation
 Agreement with South Africa de facto extends reciprocity to other  SACU
 countries. With the EU having half promised to allow duty  free  access
 for all products from ACP countries involved in the  EPA  process,  and
 LDCs having this right on a non-reciprocal basis, the  Southern  Africa
 EPA  should  focus  largely  on  developmental  issues  and  non-tariff
 barriers in the EU market (subsidies and technical barriers to trade).


 The Economic Development Committee (on which we serve) will prepare its
 next report on the controversial issue of  "budgetising"  the  European
 Development Fund, which currently operates on the  basis  of  voluntary
 contributions by EU member states. In the debate  on  this  issue,  the
 development  commissioner,   Paul   Nielson,   spoke   in   favour   of
 budgetisation (i.e. including EDF  funding  in  the  European  budget),
 arguing this was the best way to ensure funding for development in  ACP
 countries -  particularly  with  EU  enlargement  on  the  horizon.  He
 declined, however, to offer an assurance that no ACP country  would  be
 worse off after budgetisation, saying that the focus of funding was now
 on performance, and that funds would not be disbursed to countries that
 could not perform.


 The JPA also received a short input on AU  processes  from  the  Deputy
 Chairperson of the AU Commission, Mr Patrick Mazimhaka. While there was
 general support for AU programmes from the floor,  it  became  apparent
 during this debate that there is an  urgent  need  to  promote  greater
 alignment between the Cotonou and the AU processes.


 As usual Workshops were held  on  issues  of  importance  to  the  host
 country - Food Security in Ethiopia, Health and Education  and  Private
 Sector Development. We participated in the first  two,  which  involved
 visits to water security projects and  programmes  for  sufferers  from
 HIV/AIDS. These gave a vivid  impression  of  the  enormous  challenges
 facing Ethiopia, but also of the efforts being made  to  address  them.
 For  example,  Ethiopia  is  about  to  introduce  an   anti-Retroviral
 programme.


 A feature of the JPA session was  that  Ethiopian  Prime  Minister,  Mr
 Meles Zenawi, made himself available for an hour's Q and A session with
 participants, and later for a  similar  ninety-minute  engagement  with
 members of the Joint Bureau. These covered  a  wide  range  of  themes,
 including the border dispute with Eritrea. The Eritrean delegation  did
 not participate in the 7th JPA, after objecting to the venue.  The  Co-
 Presidents, however, visited Eritrea ahead of the JPA. On  this  issue,
 the Prime Minister essentially argued that  some  of  the  UN  Boundary
 Commission's recommendations were "irrational" as they divided  houses,
 churches, villages and roads. He said that under normal  circumstances,
 his country could probably have lived with them,  but  that  there  was
 serious tension in the relationship with  Eritrea  and  that,  in  this
 context, acceptance could fuel such tensions. He  said,  however,  that
 Ethiopia had renounced war as an option in resolving  this  issue,  and
 was looking for a process of dialogue similar to that  between  Nigeria
 and Cameroon on their border issues.


 The ACP Bureau, of which we are now members, recommended that  we  take
 the vacant position of Co-Vice President for Human Rights. We accepted,
 after pointing to the uncertainties  arising  from  our  election.  The
 position is essentially awarded  to  our  delegation  and  not  to  any
 individual and will be held by whoever leads our delegation to the  JPA
 after our elections. This appointment came too late for us to engage in
 ACP structures on a report drafted only by the EU Co-Vice President. In
 the Joint Bureau meeting, Rob Davies offered a number  of  comments  on
 this, suggesting that there was a need  for  greater  balance  through,
 inter alia, addressing more substantially issues  in  the  EU  such  as
 immigration policy, racism and the rise of far right populism and their
 impact on ACP relations.


 The Joint Bureau, unfortunately, did not have time for any  substantial
 discussion of the  workings  of  the  new  Committee-based  system.  In
 numerous discussions, we indicated our view that it  was  necessary  to
 strengthen  the  Committees'  work  in  the   direction   of   creating
 opportunities for  ongoing  oversight  of  the  EPA  processes,  public
 hearings and the receiving of reports on e.g. impact studies. The Joint
 Bureau did,  however,  decide  that  reports  from  the  Commission  on
 implementation of resolutions (dealt with up to now  in  a  perfunctory
 manner in plenary) should be referred to relevant Committees  for  more
 substantial processing. All of this may well require making  more  time
 available for Committee meetings.


 The 7th JPA is the last that will be held before  EU  enlargement  (May
 1st) and the European Parliamentary elections  in  June.  A  number  of
 regular participants in JPA sessions will not be returning,  and  there
 is much uncertainty about the political complexion of the new  European
 parliament. Generally, however, it is expected  that  enlargement  will
 bring in a number of countries with little experience of,  and  perhaps
 limited interest in, matters of ACP co-operation and that there will be
 major challenges to raise the profile of these issues.


 The next Bureau and Committee meetings have been tentatively  scheduled
 to  begin  on  the  5th  October  in  Brussels,  and  the   8th   Joint
 Parliamentary Assembly to take place in The Hague, Netherlands from  22
 to 25 November 2004.




 Rob Davies   Ntshadi Tsheole

 Report and Financial Statements  of  the  National  Development  Agency
 (NDA) for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
 Financial Statements for 2002-2003 [RP 9-2004].

 Report to be considered.

 Report to be considered.

 Request to be considered.

 Report to be considered.

 Report to be considered.

 Report to be considered.

 Report to be considered.

 Report to be considered.

 The Portfolio Committee on Transport reports, as follows:


 1.     The National Department of Transport (NDoT)  presented  the  RAF
     Amendment Bill (2003) to the Committee in October  2003.  The  main
     objective of the Bill is to alleviate the financial burden  of  the
     RAF by introducing measures that would assist with  the  cash  flow
     situation of the organisation.


 2.     The Committee conducted relatively extensive public hearings  on
     the Bill, as well as oversight visits to  the  head-office  of  the
     RAF,  to  the  main  claims  processing  office  of  the   RAF   in
     Johannesburg, and to the offices of  personal  injury  lawyers,  in
     order to familiarise ourselves  with  the  context  and  challenges
     within which the proposed amendments were being tabled.
 3.     After considerable discussion and  deliberation,  the  Committee
     agreed that some of the proposed measures, with slight  amendments,
     were acceptable. In particular, those clauses of the Bill that:


     a. Provided for the liability of the Fund in  respect  of  hospital
          and treatment costs according to prescribed medical tariffs;
     b. Limited the liability of the Fund in respect of claims  of  non-
          residents and non-citizens of the Republic;
     c. Excluded the liability of the Fund  in  respect  of  claims  for
          emotional shock sustained as a result of witnessing, observing
          or being informed of the bodily injury  or  death  of  another
          person.


 4.     However, in the course of our deliberations, the Committee found
     other clauses to be not suitable. Specifically those that:
     a. Provided for monthly instalments and not  lump-sum  payments  in
          certain cases;
     b. Provided  for  the  mandatory  resolution  of  disputes  through
          compulsory mediation and arbitration.


 5.     Accordingly, on the 19th November 2003 the Committee proposed to
     the NDoT that a  scaled-down  version  of  the  Amendment  Bill  be
     drafted and adopted. On the 18th February 2003, the  NDoT  reported
     back  to  the  Committee  that  the  Department  agreed  with   the
     Committee's proposals.


 6.     Unfortunately, with the  impending  dissolution  of  Parliament,
     there is insufficient time to proceed effectively  with  the  Bill.
     In the light  of  the  wide-ranging  public  presentations  at  our
     hearings, and in the light of the agreement between  the  Committee
     and the Department, we hope that the incoming  Parliament  will  be
     able to take the process forward with relative speed,  and  mindful
     of what has preceded.


 7.     The Committee also recommends that the new Parliament approaches
     the Bill with three other general considerations in mind:


     a. Proceeding with the Amendment Bill should not detract  from  the
          need  to  address  other  urgent  operational  and   financial
          challenges to ensure the short-term sustainability of the RAF;


     b. Legislative amendments and  operational  amendments  should  not
          pre-empt or distract from  the  medium-term  imperative  of  a
          major transformation of the Fund, as  envisaged,  broadly,  by
          the Road Accident Fund Commission Report; and


     c. Reform and eventual transformation  of  the  Fund  is  only  one
          aspect of the challenge. Even more critical is the pursuit  of
          all-round strategies to reduce the number  of  fatalities  and
          injuries on our roads.


 Report to be considered.

 Report to be considered.