Women, Children & People with Disabilities Budgetary Review & Recommendation Report 2011

Meeting report

Deliberations on the Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report 2011
The Chairperson asked the Members to reflect on the report and the amendments made during the previous meeting of 20 0ctober 2011 so that the report could be adopted.

Ms K Abrahams, Committee Researcher, said she had included the comments made by Committee in the previous meeting but the rest of the report remained the same.

Ms D Robinson (DA) asked if the Committee was happy with the statement made by the Department that it had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with various entities not only in relation to the Sanitary Dignity Campaign but also other initiatives even though the Department failed to provide details (under Observations). She thought there was a blurring of responsibilities because she had not seen the Memoranda of Understanding, but the Committee could leave it if it thought that the information was general.
 
The Committee Researcher said the Department did indicate that it had lots of partnerships and collaborations regarding Memoranda of Understanding, but she understood that the Committee wanted to know the exact nature of those memoranda. The Committee should indicate in its recommendations that the Department should provide more information on the nature of the memoranda of understanding undertaken with various entities.

A Member said there should be a clear timeframe indicated so that the Committee could track whether the Department met those deadlines. It would be important to know the under and overspending under Recommendations of the Committee because those indicated a lack of compliance by the Department to various pieces of legislation and regulations such as those of National Treasury. It almost seemed as if the report was reading like minutes of a meeting and that should not be the case because there was a different format for writing reports and minutes. It was a major concern that the Department did not meet some of its targets.

The Chairperson agreed that a report had a different format to minutes. She thought there should be a section in the report where it reflected on the Committee’s interaction with the Department.

Ms D Robinson (DA) asked if the drafters should not mention that the Annual Report was submitted late, or had the matter been addressed?

The Chairperson indicated that the Department did respond about the late submission of the Annual Report and even had a document explaining this. The Chairperson emphasised that the Committee should not adopt the report for the sake of adopting, but should produce quality work. She understood the mandate of the Department as monitoring, evaluation, advocacy and coordination.

The Committee Researcher said, in terms of treaty compliance and monitoring of key legislation, the Department should separate each piece of legislation/treaty with corresponding targets when reporting on progress (under Recommendations). 

The Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report 2011 was adopted as amended without any objections.

Meeting was adjourned.