Briefing by PRASA on recovery of mainline train services; Clause by clause deliberations on the Marine Pollution (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) A/Bill; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson apologised for the last minute change from a physical to a virtual meeting. He appreciated Members’ willingness to make themselves available for public hearings over the weekend. During these public hearings, concerns were raised around the process of disposal of coaches for long distance travel. This was the reason that the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) had been asked to present today to provide insights on the mainline train services.

Opening remarks by the Deputy Minister
Deputy Minister of Transport, Ms Sindisiwe Chikunga, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to present and for playing its oversight role. She apologised on behalf of the Minister of Transport for not being present, as he was out of the country. She mentioned that the vacant post of Director-General (DG) had been filled by Adv James Mlawu, in whom the Department of Transport (DOT) had the utmost confidence. Mainline passenger services (MLPS) have faced numerous challenges since being transferred to PRASA from Transnet in 2008. The limited performance was attributed to, amongst other things, the fact that the locomotives that were transferred with the MLPS were already due to be phased out. Another issue was that the maintenance facilities lacked the relevant engineering and technical skills to maintain these locomotives. PRASA had not been geared up to deal with these locomotives, which had made it dependent on Transnet for maintenance and support, which was not sustainable from a cost perspective.

The procurement of Afro 4000 and Afro Dual locomotives had been aimed at curating the situation. The contract had been declared irregular and was set aside, but PRASA was in the process of recovering the remaining locomotives that had been part of the contract. MLPS travelled on Transnet’s network 90% of the time. However, Transnet’s network had been and continued to be severely affected by theft and vandalism, which had escalated during the COVID-19 lockdown. A business plan had now been developed for the MLPS. It resumed its service on the East London route in December 2021 and resumed its service on the Musina route in September 2022. However, the East London route had experienced delays of up to ten hours and, in some instances, had not been able to complete trips due to vandalism of infrastructure, leading to buses being deployed to complete the trips. Passenger numbers on the East London route had been very low as people had sought alternatives. PRASA had decided to focus its efforts on these two routes, which would give it time to fix the lines on the Cape Town, Komatipoort and Durban routes. Transnet had made numerous attempts to restore the lines but theft, vandalism and destruction persisted.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was looking forward to working with the new DG.

Adv Mlawu, DG, DOT, said he was also looking forward to working with the Committee.

Mr Leonard Ramatlakane, Chairperson of the Board, PRASA, confirmed that it was only running two routes and that these two routes were experiencing challenges. The condition of the network was really not good. There would be a joint meeting with the board of Transnet and PRASA to discuss the infrastructure issues. He confirmed that PRASA had started its operation of MLPS at a disadvantage due to the age of the locomotives it had inherited.
 
PRASA Presentation
Mr Hishaam Emeran, Acting Group Chief Executive Officer (CEO), PRASA, explained that the decline of the MLPS over the years had been due to; locomotive challenges (reliability and availability), infrastructure challenges (cable theft, vandalism and speed restrictions), high access cost (Transnet network) and changing passenger travelling patterns (journey vs travelling experience).

Mr Emeran presented the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis) for the MLPS. He set out PRASA’s strategic options, distinguished by their different degree of government involvement, from shutting down the service to running it on a concession basis. PRASA was looking to operate a reduced service in the short term, while modernising and looking at options for concessioning. High and higher-speed rail would be a part of the modernisation, with an initial focus on routes from Johannesburg to Durban, Polokwane and Bloemfontein, while concession options for sleeper, tourist and cross-border services were being explored. He summarised the financial structure and key requirements for a viable MLPS and outlined PRASA’s action plan to achieve this.

(Please see the presentation document for further details)

Discussion
Mr L McDonald (ANC) said that the online booking system was broken and the toll-free number did not work. Links on the website and the Facebook page did not work. PRASA needed to understand that its core business was to transport people from one point to another safely and cost-effectively. Since 2009, there has been a severe decline in its services, even before the COVID-19 pandemic. On coaches on the East London route, there was no water and the toilets on the train were not working. Why did poor black people always have to receive the worst service? It was like Apartheid all over again. He struggled to understand why some of the network was planned to be de-electrified. The whole world is moving away from diesel, but South Africa is moving towards it. South Africa has committed itself to addressing climate change but now millions are being spent on diesel trains. How many dining and sleeper cars were there and who was contracted to run them? Why did PRASA want to move away from sleeper coaches in favour of sitting coaches? Getting on a train should be an experience, especially for those going on holiday. Why was there no proper train where people could book tickets and have a proper, affordable, luxury experience? He was not happy with the R1.8 billion that was still owed to Transnet. Overall, the situation was a mess and it had to change.

Mr T Mabhena (DA) said that the presentation revealed an organisation that had collapsed. I had lost 99.5% of its passengers. It was only running two routes. What was the total cost of operating these diesel locomotives compared to an electric system? In the last 12 months, how much had PRASA raised in terms of ticket sales? He mentioned that he had bought a train ticket in Soweto but it would have been easy to get onto the platform without a ticket. There were leakages and PRASA could not account for all passengers and revenue. There was also overcrowding. Could PRASA expand on how it planned to offer services for special events? Was PRASA capable of raising funds in the capital market? The SWOT analysis painted a picture of complete reliance on government grants. PRASA could not break even with the revenue it received. Had there been auctions done for the locomotives that would be phased out? Had there been any interest from the operators on the African continent? The SWOT analysis also claimed that PRASA offered a unique service in transporting passengers, but this was not true, as minibuses tended to out-compete PRASA. He noted that PRASA wanted to offer tourist services but doubted that tourists would choose PRASA over the Gautrain. The SWOT analysis mentioned strong staff expertise, but then why had the organisation collapsed? If there were insufficient skilled staff, what was being done to address the shortage? It was also simply not true to say that train services were safer than taxis. If passengers did not keep their hands in their pockets, their phones would disappear. If they fell asleep on the train, their bags would disappear. What were PRASA’s plans to fix its security issues?

Ms F Khumalo (ANC) was shocked upon hearing about all the challenges facing MLPS. It was the transport mode that was most trusted by the people of South Africa and it could not remain in this condition. The issues of security and people feeling unsafe should be addressed. Were there any strategies to convince people that things were being done? She noted that a joint meeting between Transnet and PRASA on the issues had been planned. The outcome of the meeting should be shared with the Committee. She hoped that the issues would be addressed soon.

Mr M Chabangu (EFF) said communities wanted to see visible policing. When would the police be brought back to ensure passengers were safe on trains? What was the relationship between PRASA and Transnet concerning safety? How much profit was PRASA making annually, compared to the past? Or was it making a loss?

Ms M Ramadwa (ANC) welcomed the presentation and congratulated the new DG on his appointment. She noted plans for a higher-speed train between Johannesburg and Polokwane. She argued that there should be a higher-speed train to Musina rather than Polokwane because most people in Polokwane had cars and could use air travel, while people going to Zimbabwe usually used the trains. She asked how Autopax Passenger Services was filling the gaps where mainline trains were not operating. She said at the public hearings, it was evident that communities did not know the difference between PRASA and Transnet. It was important that people knew this so they would not think that one was owned by the other. The public had also drawn attention to the need for ticket examiners. This would improve revenue collection. She noted that although a permanent DG had been appointed, PRASA still only had an acting Group CEO. When would a permanent appointment be made? The DOT should consider offering services for special events. In the public hearings, many people raised the issue of safety. There should be communication with the South African Police Service (SAPS) on safety.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) recalled that there had been a promise to hire more than 3 000 security guards. Has this started yet? Cable theft was happening because there was no security in place. How long would it take for PRASA to hire those security guards? There must be timeframes on when vacancies would be filled. The presentation indicated that PRASA did not have sufficient capacity. What kind of capacity was lacking? How much funding had been raised besides government funding? If tourists come to South Africa, they should be in a safe space. Had there been any consultation with the Department of Tourism?

Responses
Mr Emeran noted that some of the questions were on broader issues at PRASA, while the presentation focused on MLPS. He said that the R1.8bn was an operational debt and it was being dealt with. He explained that PRASA did not raise capital from outside investors, but relied on National Treasury and government for fiscus regarding the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). It was 100%-funded. PRASA was currently making a loss, not only on MLPS but on all the limited services it was presently running. Corridors were still being recovered. Revenue had dropped significantly. This year, PRASA was sitting at a loss of R900m. He admitted that diesel was more expensive than electric. De-electrification was a Transnet strategy, while PRASA’s use of diesel was only a short-term solution. Looking toward the future, he agreed that diesel was on the way out. PRASA was looking toward hydrogen and electric power in the future. The reality was that Transnet’s long-distance network had been impacted by theft and vandalism, and so PRASA could not run its electric locomotives even if it wanted. He admitted that the booking system was facing challenges, especially for long-distance rail. At the moment, there was a telephonic booking system through which one received a reference number which could be used to collect the tickets at the station. Going forward, PRASA wanted to roll out an online ticketing system. Sleeper and dining coaches were being run internally, not being outsourced. He said there has been information about the uptake in tickets to East London. He said there are many last-minute bookings that tend to be the norm on some of these services rather than booking in advance. He said that more information on Musina could be provided, but added that high- and higher-speed trains were medium- to long-term goals, subject to feasibility studies before the projects could be rolled out.

Mr Alexio Papadopulo, acting Head of Security, PRASA, recalled that toward the end of 2020, PRASA had terminated some security contracts, leading to a decrease in warm bodies from 11 000 to under 1000. Thereafter, 3 000 internal security personnel had been appointed. In December 2021, a pilot programme had deployed on the Mabopane corridor. Zero incidents of theft or vandalism had occurred there for almost a full 12 months. From June 2021, the number of passenger incidents had decreased by almost 70%, as did the number of theft and vandalism incidents. A regular Friday task team was deployed on trains to check tickets, while each train had onboard security. Personnel were also deployed on platforms and between stations. PRASA had now deployed 7 000 security officials. Over 520 security personnel were deployed on the Naledi Corridor alone. On 1 November 2022, a specific intervention unit was deployed on the Cape Town Central Line. No incidents or accidents have occurred on the line since then. PRASA had a relationship with the Railway Police and had joined a forum of state-owned entities (SOEs) such as Transnet, Eskom, Telkom and PRASA called the economic sabotage of critical infrastructure (ESCI) Committee. He confirmed that MLPS services ran largely on the Transnet network, although PRASA had stepped in to provide onboard security. PRASA had deployed an additional 100 armed and tactical units on the East London corridor to assist Transnet and the police. Weekly meetings at a national level were taking place with sector commanders. PRASA had intensified revenue collection efforts and upgrades would be made to the technology. There were security and fencing projects that would eliminate fare-dodging.

Mr Ramatlakane clarified that the position of Group CEO had been advertised and a permanent appointment would be made before the end of 2022. One round of interviews had been done and the second round would take place at the end of November 2022. A court case involving the former group CEO was still ongoing, but this would not prevent the appointment of a permanent replacement. The questions raised by the Committee were important and PRASA would continue to engage with them. The reality was that after the level five lockdown, the rail system had been almost completely vandalised. It was unfortunate that security personnel had been fired before finding an alternative. PRASA had now reclaimed a number of corridors although they had not yet yielded the hoped-for results.

Follow up discussion
The Chairperson was disappointed that nobody had yet been held accountable for the lapse of security. Saying that “the system had been vandalised” was really an expired excuse. It was such a shame that such expensive infrastructure had been stolen in broad daylight. The same board that had appointed the former Group CEO was now appointing the new Group CEO and spending money in court. This was unacceptable. The Committee hoped that whatever processes PRASA was embarking on would bring the desired results.

Mr Sithole agreed that COVID-19 could not continue to be wheeled out as an excuse. The rot had started long before. There had been corruption within PRASA for a long time but no one had been held accountable. This is where the problem started. He asked when trains were expected to run between Katlehong and Germiston again.

Mr Mabhena said that his question about the sale of the locomotives on the African continent had not been responded to. Had there been any interest? His questions about the incorrect utilisation of staff members and the issue of security had not been addressed. The question about the involvement of the tourism sector has also not been responded to.

Mr McDonald said everyone wanted to see the tax money being utilised properly. All citizens of South Africa should be able to use these facilities. It was disingenuous to blame the destruction of the train service on COVID-19. Even before COVID-19 passenger numbers had dropped by more than 99%. Over the years, there has been a continuous decline. The infrastructure had also been at the point of destruction even before COVID-19. Blaming everything on COVID-19 did not wash away the issues. People were living in the stations in Cape Town and Johannesburg. PRASA was doing nothing about this. The station was destroyed in Acacia Park, next to the government village. He had seen people removing cables and had reported it but nothing had happened. PRASA was painting a picture that things were getting better but this was not the case. He had not seen security at stations. Why could PRASA not refurbish and modernise the current coaches? Why did it have to buy new things? Why could it not fix the things it already had? This would allow it to provide a service to the people of South Africa that it could be proud of. As a member of Parliament, he was disappointed when he looked at the state of PRASA.

Mr Emeran said that the Katlehong-Germiston corridor was in the process of being recovered. Some challenges remain related to electrification. He explained that contractors were responsible for site security when restoration projects were underway. There was then a handover of responsibility once the project was complete. There had been no sale of locomotives by PRASA. Seven locomotives had been auctioned off as part of the liquidation of the contractor. A proper market assessment and analysis would have to be done to look at opportunities to sell locomotives. There was a challenge of inefficiency regarding the rolling stock versus the services currently running. These inefficiencies were being looked at. PRASA was doing its best to re-utilise and re-purpose its assets. A project was currently underway specifically on refurbishing the existing fleet. Coaches would be refurbished but this did not remove the need to replace and renew technology.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on whether PRASA was still procuring anything from the company in Spain, even in the absence of the liquidated contractor.

Mr Emeran replied that some of the Afro 4000 locomotives in Spain were still at the harbour in Valencia. There was an ongoing process between the liquidator and the manufacturer. While this process was ongoing, there was no parallel process to procure locomotives. There were however leasing arrangements in place. It was critical that there was closure on the matter of the Afro locomotives.

The Chairperson asked whether the locomotives at Valencia belonged to the liquidated company or PRASA.

Mr Emeran replied that these locomotives did not belong to PRASA.

The Deputy Minister confirmed that PRASA had an action plan in place that she believed would turn the organisation around if implemented. There had already been some improvements although they may not be that noticeable, but they would be more noticeable going forward. She said that train challenges actually went back as far as the 1980s, when the Apartheid government established a commission that had concluded that it was not necessary for the government to invest in rail services. By the early 1990s, allocated funding for rail had gone down from around R6bn to around R600m. At the same time, the government had deregulated the transportation of goods on the road. There was no investment in locomotives or infrastructure. When the democratic government took over, the state of rail services was already poor. The democratic government had not realised this immediately. The history of railway services showed that these challenges had been around for a long time, even if it was true that the democratic government and the DOT could have done better.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would look at how it could play its oversight role to ensure that the issue of security was addressed. The issue of the locomotives sitting in Spain should be brought back into focus. The issue of the debt to Transnet should also be dealt with. He suggested that there be a joint meeting with the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises to deal with it and the track-sharing arrangements more generally. It made no difference to passengers whether track was owned by PRASA or Transnet. He thanked members for their robust engagement. It was incumbent on it that it did not go down in history as having failed in its role of oversight over PRASA. He also thanked the Deputy Minister and PRASA for their engagement.

Clause-by-clause deliberations on the Marine Pollution (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill [B5-2022]
Adv Alma Nel, Content Advisor, Portfolio Committee on Transport, presented the Bill.

Long title
This clause was accepted.

Clause 1: Amendment of section 1 on definitions
This clause was accepted.

Clause 2: Insertion of sections 2A and 2B
Adv Nel explained that 2A incorporated the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships into South African law, while 2B allowed the Authority to issue technical standards on matters relating to marine pollution that would have the force of law.

Mr Sithole asked for clarity on the word ‘shall’ in 2A.

Adv Nel explained that in most instances, ‘shall’ and ‘must’ had the same weight. In this context, it placed an obligation on the Minister to amend the Schedule as soon as practicable. 2B, on the other hand, gave the Minister discretion to issue technical standards but did not oblige them to do so.

The Chairperson added that the reason the Minister was placed under an obligation was that South Africa had already signed the Convention.

Mr Sithole was still not entirely satisfied with the word ‘shall’ in 2A. It had a different meaning from the usage of the word in 2B(2), which stated that ‘a technical standard shall have the force of law.’

A legal advisor confirmed Adv Nel and the Chairperson’s explanation.

Mr Sithole accepted the explanation.

This clause was accepted.

Clause 3: Amendment of section 3 on regulations
This clause was accepted.

Clause 4: Amendment of section 3A on increasing fines and sentences
This clause was accepted.

Clause 5: Insertion of section 3B on powers of the Minister
Mr Sithole asked for clarity on whether the powers in this clause were discretionary.

The Chairperson confirmed that they were. The Minister could use his or her discretion to decide whether to do the things listed in the clause, such as delegating an official to act on their behalf on matters dealt with in the Act.

Mr Sithole noted that the clause empowered the Minister to delegate ‘any official’ to act on their behalf. Did this mean it could even be a junior officer?

The Chairperson asked Mr Sithole what he would like the clause to say.

Mr Sithole suggested that only an accounting officer should be authorised to act on behalf of the Minister.

The Chairperson noted that this would exclude even deputy directors-general. ‘Any official’ also included accounting officers.

Ms Ramadwa understood that when the Minister delegated an official, the official’s actions remained the Minister’s responsibility. Therefore ‘any official’ in this context was proper and appropriate.

A legal advisor confirmed that ‘any official’ included an accounting officer. He also noted that situations could arise where the accounting officer was unavailable and a duty would have to be assigned to another official.

Mr Sithole accepted the clause.

The clause was accepted.

Clause 6: Amendment of Schedule
The clause was accepted.

Clause 7: Short title and commencement
The clause was accepted.

Annex IV: Regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships (regulations 1-18)
Adv Nel noted that this annex reproduced the Convention almost word for word.

Regulation 1: definitions
Adv Nel said that the definition of sewage in the Regulation differed from that in the Convention by the removal of ‘WC scuppers’ from the list of sources of sewage, presumably because ‘WC’ was a European term for wet rooms.

Mr McDonald said that the Regulation should include ‘scuppers’ or ‘toilet scuppers’ as a source of sewage. A scuppers was usually an open hole for water to drain and not pool. They were used on many ships. He also did not understand why the definition of a passenger should exclude children under one year of age.

The Chairperson said that if it does not do any harm, the definition should stay there. He understood that it included everything of MARPOL but was just excluding the WC from scuppers.

Adv Nel noted that it was possible that the text of the Convention she was working from was out of date, and the latest text might also exclude the term ‘WC scuppers.’

A DOT official said it would not harm to include ‘WC scuppers.’ The definition of a passenger to exclude a child under the age of one was inherited from the Convention.

The Regulation was accepted by the Committee.

Regulation 2: application of the Annex
Adv Nel recalled that there had been some debate about the tonnage of vessels to which the Annex would apply, noise pollution and reporting compliance, among others.

Mr McDonald said he was inclined to say that the Annex should apply to vessels of 100 gross tonnage and above, rather than 400. 400 would mean that the Annex would only cover huge ships

The Chairperson recalled that some stakeholders had also suggested this.

Mr Dumisani Ntuli, Chief Director: Maritime Transport Policy and Legislation, DOT, said the current definition of a ship in the principal Act already allowed South Africa an opportunity to apply some of these regulations to all ships.

Adv Nel said that the Regulation provided for the application of the Annex to ships above and below 400 gross tonnage. It therefore covers both small and huge ships. She reiterated that it covers all vessels.

Mr McDonald said there were ships with less than 400 gross tonnage carrying less than 15 people. According to his reading, the Regulation would not cover these vessels. He accepted the clause even with this concern.

The Regulation was accepted by the Committee.

Committee discussion
The Chairperson asked the Committee to consider the request of the South African Bus Rapid Transit Association (SABRATA) to re-look at section 41 of the National Land Transport Act. The Committee has promised SABRATA a response. SABRATA had argued that section 41 put new bus operators at a disadvantage. His own view was that section 41 should be dealt with at municipal level, where the contracts in question were entered into.

Mr Sithole felt that the Chairperson was ambushing the Members with this matter. He had not prepared to consider SABRATA’s request. He requested that the matter be dealt with at the next meeting.

The Chairperson denied that he was ambushing the Members. There was a limited time to respond and he did not want the Committee to be seen as non-responsive. He suggested that Members write their views on this matter to the Committee Secretary so that the Committee as a whole could articulate a response to SABRATA.

Mr Mabhena did not think there was any reason for the Committee to be put under time pressure because of an earlier commitment. It could inform SABRATA that a response would be provided in due time. He agreed with Mr Sithole that the matter be dealt with at the next meeting.

Ms Ramadwa agreed with Mr Mabhena.

The Chairperson noted that the agenda of the next meeting was also long, but agreed to deal with it then as Members suggested.

The meeting was adjourned.