Eastern Cape Oversight Trip analysis by Public Works Portfolio Committee

Meeting report

Meeting attendance
The Chairperson impressed on Members that meetings should start as scheduled and that attendance was ‘the rule rather than the exception.’ If members could not attend they should send their apologies as soon as possible. He said that a set number of members in attendance was necessary for the meeting to commence, and if a decision was to be made, a quorum was necessary. The constant stream of apologies would be looked into.

Eastern Cape Oversight Trip
The Chairperson thanked the Committee for the trip to the Eastern Cape, their first trip together as a committee. Parliament wanted the report on the trip. He stressed that teamwork was essential if the Committee was to achieve its mandate.  He said that as a portfolio Committee they could not defend everything the Department of Public Works did but it should encourage the department to do better.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) asked that the Committee do a brief evaluation of the oversight trip. He felt that the Committee needed to consider whether the Eastern Cape was a success or needed serious attention.

Mr G Radebe (ANC) suggested that before an oversight trip, the Committee needed to consult properly rather than relying solely on government officials. Reliable people in the area familiar with the projects should serve as guides. The Committee was only taken to impressive sites and not to the worst ones. They needed to see both and make a comparison.

The Chairperson agreed that the trips should be better planned. They had spent a lot of time on the road rather than checking as many projects as possible.

Mr M Manana (ANC) said that the Committee should reflect on the visit’s intention. They needed clear terms of reference. They needed a measuring tool to gauge the success of the visit to check whether the objectives were met. This would enable the Committee to criticise itself and work toward improving its effectiveness.

The Chairperson replied that the terms of reference were clear: schools and the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) projects would be visited.

Ms N Mgcengwane (ANC) said that the Eastern Cape trip was the first that the Committee had done since she joined it in 2006 and that in itself was positive. Previously there were always excuses why they could not visit. She took issue with the fact that they had ‘answers for everything’.

Mr P Mnguni (COPE) noted that some questions raised in the Eastern Cape were not addressed. He brought attention to the power relations between the parliamentary portfolio committee and the provincial legislature portfolio committee. He wanted to know what authority the Committee had over provincial matters and how issues between the two Committees were addressed.

The Chairperson responded that power relations were set out in the Constitution and that as members of Parliament, the Committee should know how authority was distributed.

Mr M Rabotapti (DA) was concerned about the mentality that allowed project finances to find its way into individual’s pockets. These people hindered service delivery and the finger was then pointed at government for lack of service delivery.

The Chairperson replied that he suspected foul play regarding finances. The Committee would be firm but fair and so the lack of evidence meant that the Committee would be fair.

Mr G Radebe  (ANC) wanted to know if the Committee was confined to Public Works and EPWP. Access to clinics and hospitals were humanitarian issues and this should fall within the realm of the Committee.

Mr S Masango (DA) suggested that any changes to the Committee Report be submitted before the next meeting.

The Chairperson concluded that the Eastern Cape had evaded review too long. The Eastern Cape was not a lost cause because the people had hope and aspirations. He wanted a report on the progress of EPWP Phase 2. He also raised concern about the North West.

Money Bills Amendment Procedure Act
The Chairperson said that even though the structures for the implementation of this Act were not yet in place, this should not stop the Committee from acting within its parameters. The Bill set out expectations for the parliamentary committees and they should live up to these expectations.

Agenda for the next meeting
The Chairperson apologised for the committee reports and minutes that the Committee had only received the morning of the meeting. The documents were ready and set to be sent out last week but there had been a delay in the delivery process. Since the decisions made had to be defendable in a court of law and because the Committee had not had time to review the documents, decision-making would be postponed to the next meeting. The Chairperson said that recommendations ought to be sent to the secretary by Friday 19^th or Monday morning at the latest. This would ensure that the changes could be deliberated on properly, thus ensuring that time was used optimally.

The Chairperson said that the bulk of work would be done next week. The President’s State of the Nation address, the Budget vote and the Strategic plans (out in March) had to be reflected in the Committee’s five-year plan. There would be public hearings on the plans.

The draft report to be submitted to Parliament was to be discussed in the next meeting as well as the adoption of the previous meeting’s minutes and the outstanding reports. The Chairperson added that the management committee should be filled the following week. He informed the Committee that all current oversight visit requests had been declined.

Meeting adjourned.