Division of Revenue Bill: final mandates; Committee Report on Agriculture conditional grants

Meeting report

As two provinces were still finalizing their final mandates on the Division of Revenue Bill, the Committee agreed to consider its Committee Report on the Agriculture Conditional Grants first.

Committee Report on Agriculture Conditional Grants underspending hearing
The Chairperson reminded the Committee of the 17 February 2021 meeting held with five provinces and the Department on conditional grant under expenditure as provinces were not spending their grants. Once the Report is adopted the Committee will present it to the House.

The Committee Secretary, Mr Lubabalo Nodada, took Members through the report.

The Chairperson asked Members to indicate any changes they would like to make.

Mr S du Toit (FF+, North West) asked the Committee to implement a recommendation that states that Members of Executive Council (MECs) and Premiers will be held responsible for underspending. The North West has underspent for years and MECs are not ensuring that the work is being done. Consequence management should be implemented, and the Committee should be advised on how this was implemented. The North West MEC stated during an oversight meeting that the Committee should be happy that they are underspending because of corruption. The Committee was reminded that the public needs services and grants need to be spent efficiently.

Mr D Ryder (DA, Gauteng) said the report is good. The only point left out by the Committee is the implementation of consequence management. People who continually underspend should come and account to Parliament.

The Chairperson agreed that consequence management should be implemented but the recommendation should state the way in which it must be implemented. The Committee needs to assess them and create a tracking mechanism and recommend accordingly. Those who are underspending should come and account to the Committee. Members were asked if they agree.

Mr du Toit pointed out that the MEC should spend money wisely and that Premiers are responsible for their Provinces in conjunction with their MECs of Finance. Premiers should be held accountable for what is happening in their Provinces as they are the higher authority.

The Chairperson disagreed and stated that before escalating matters to the Premier, the Executive Authority within the Department and the Accounting Officer should intervene. The Senior Parliamentary Legal Advisor present would advise the Committee on this.

Mr Ryder reiterated the importance of calling the Premier to account. The Premier employs the MECs and needs to ensure that they are performing.

The Chairperson asked for further input before receiving legal advice.

Mr Y Carrim (ANC, KZN) stated that just like the President, not every issue can be directed to the Premier. Holding the MEC accountable is correct. If the Committee insists and there is a reasonable consensus across parties, a role can be inserted for the Premier, without holding them accountable.

The Chairperson did not agree with the suggestion of holding the Premier accountable. The Committee should look at holding MECs and the various Departments involved accountable before escalating the matter to the Premier. The Committee should assess and engage and ensure that impact assessments are done. Once the Department Executive has been dealt with, the Committee can recommend to the Premier that there needs to be consequences. It is important that there is no underexpenditure because it affects service delivery.

Mr E Njandu (ANC, Western Cape) agreed that the first point of accountability lay with the MEC. He emphasised that the Committee needs to implement consequence management. Agriculture is important to food security.

The Chairperson asked if Mr du Toit and Mr Ryder were persuaded.

Mr du Toit stated that he took note. He reiterated that MECs in the North West did not see that work was done and neither were funds used sufficiently. MECs are responsible for fulfilling their mandate and if they do not, there are no consequences. He emphasised that people need to be held accountable for non-performance.

Mr Ryder argued that the Premier represents the Province. He suggested that the Agriculture MEC should account to the Select Committee on Agriculture. The Committee is looking at how the Departments of Finance and Agriculture work together to spend the money. The Premier should be monitoring the MECs. He agreed to go with the majority view.

The Chairperson asked for the input of other Members so that an assessment could be made of the majority view.

Mr Z Mkiva (ANC, Eastern Cape) responded in his vernacular language.

The Chairperson translated the comment by Mr Mkiva who agreed with Mr Carrim. Before involving the Premier, the Committee should ask the MEC and Provincial Department to account for under expenditure. Based on that engagement, the Committee can then decide. The Finance MEC oversees the expenditure and should also be included.

Mr Njandu stated that grants are allocated to departments and the Committee should be able to get to the root of the issue. MECs lead Departments and the problem lies in the Department.

Mr Carrim remarked that Parliament does not have enough resources to equip each Committee with translators. Members have the right to speak in the language of their preference if it is one of the eleven official languages recognized by the Constitution. Members have to let the Committee know 48 hours before the meeting so that a translator can be assigned. This is the process and it needs to be followed. This information had already relayed to Mr Mkiva in the past. The Committee is asked please to cooperate.

Mr Carrim said it is agreed that the MECs should be the first point of accountability. Only once the Committee has exhausted this option can they then engage in conversation with the Premier.

The Chairperson asked Adv Jenkins to let the Committee know if it is on the right track. The Committee wants to be careful not to take over from the Portfolio Committee.

Adv Frank Jenkins, Senior Parliamentary Legal Advisor, advised the Constitution stated that Parliament and the Houses separately have the constitutional mandate to maintain oversight. The NCOP deals with provincial matters and little is said about their oversight functions. The Constitution states that the Executive Authority in a Province is established in Section 125 of the Constitution. The Executive Authority is accountable to the Provincial Legislature. The NCOP and National Assembly has a broad mandate and must maintain oversight over all organs of the state. Provinces have a very specific and narrow mandate as prescribed by the Constitution. The accountability of the Premier and the MECs rest with the Provincial Legislature. It does not stop NCOP Select Committees from calling them in to get information to understand what is happening in the Province. The information gained will influence how the Committee passes the Division of Revenue Bill. The Committee can call in the MEC or the Premier but within the context of the Committee wanting information. He emphasised the point that everything needs to remain within constitutional boundaries.

The Chairperson thanked Adv Jenkins for the clarity on Section 125 of the Constitution. The Committee will consult further on the matter.

Mr Phelelani Dlomo, Committee Content Advisor, argued that conditional grants are separated into two categories – direct and indirect grants. Direct grants are spent by provincial departments, for which you need to call in the MEC and department officials to explain rather than the Premier. That department has the information to explain the challenges to the Committee. We need to ensure that the departments have implemented our recommendations. If these are not implemented, we need to investigate what is hindering implementation. Mr Ryder raised the point about the collapse of intergovernmental relations where national and provincial departments do not see eye-to-eye on certain matters – the Premier should be invited as this is a cogent reason. The Premier cannot be called to account when the MEC and officials have the responsibility for dealing with direct grants.

Mr Dlomo noted that indirect grants are spent by the National Departments, who spend the funds on behalf of Provinces for a particular function or on behalf of Municipalities. The money for these grants is not sent to Provinces, it gets transferred to municipalities. If grants are not spent, the stakeholder must be held accountable and brief the Committee on the dynamics preventing the spending of grants. These sectoral discussions need to take place. The Select Committees have more information and can bring this Committee on board on what has transpired. The Committee was assured that the recommendation will be put in as Members have suggested.

The Chairperson agreed that before escalating matters to the Premier, it needs to deal with the provincial department and the Select Committee that is dealing directly with that department. An impact assessment and intervention should take place. The Committee was asked to agree to the adoption of the report with the amendments.

Mr Ryder asked the Chairperson if the Committee was adding a recommendation to the report.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee needs to make an impact assessment of the intervention and then recommend. We did not assess the improvement in the situation as yet.

Mr Ryder replied that his question was not answered, and he repeated his question.

The Chairperson replied that this has not yet been implemented in the report as a recommendation because the Committee has to do a follow up. The involvement of the Select Committee will be included in the report.

Mr Ryder stated that when the recommendation is added, it is important that it is carefully crafted. The Constitution states that Members of Executive Council of are accountable collectively and individually to the Provincial Legislature. This Committee cannot call MECs to account, but the MEC can give a report to it. He still believes that the Premier should be the one this Committee liaises with. If the Committee asked MECs to appear before it, they must give a report and not account.

Mr Carrim replied that if they come and report to this Committee, they are accounting to us. The wording is just a technicality. The substance is that they are going to come and account to us.
 
The Chairperson agreed with Mr Carrim about the technicality of the wording.

The Committee adopted the report.

Division of Revenue Bill [B3-2021]: final mandates
Committee Secretary, Mr Nodada, said that the Eastern Cape mandate is still unsigned.

Committee Secretary, Ms Estelle Grunewald, added that Limpopo’s mandate is still unsigned and the Speaker will only be available later to sign it. It will serve the Committee no purpose to wait for Limpopo.

Mr Ryder asked the Chairperson which two provinces had outstanding mandates.

The Chairperson explained that Limpopo is still trying to locate their Speaker to sign.

Mr Ryder argued that it is not the first time that the Committee is waiting. It was a problem the last time. The Committee should delay processing mandates. It needs to be understood that these mandates are important and the Committee must receive them in time. These Provinces failed to follow our process. This is the function of the provincial legislature and if they cannot do their job come to an agreement and sign the Division of Revenue Bill mandate so they can receive their money, then that is a problem.

The Chairperson explained that the mandate was completed but they are awaiting the signature of the Speaker. The Committee was reminded not to involve their emotions in these matters. Mr Nodada was asked if the Committee has seven mandates.

Mr Nodada confirmed that the Committee had seven mandates.

Mr du Toit stated that this is one of the reasons consequence management needed to be implemented. It is not the first time that the Committee sits with unsigned mandates for funding that needs approval. This concern is not being resolved and there is a need for accountability. The population in these Provinces is being held to ransom with dilapidated infrastructure and a lack of service delivery.

Eastern Cape
The mandate was unsigned.

Free State
Mr M Moletsane (EFF, Free State) read the mandate: The Division of Revenue Bill was deliberated on 25 May 2021. The Free State Legislature voted in favour of the Bill, signed off by the Speaker Ms N B Sifuba.

Gauteng
Mr Ryder read the mandate: The Gauteng Provincial Legislature supported the principle and detail of the Bill and therefore voted in favour of the Division of Revenue Bill. The mandate was signed by the Speaker Ms Ntombi Mekgwe on 25 May 2021.

KwaZulu-Natal
Mr Carrim read the mandate: The KwaZulu-Natal Legislature met on 25 May 2021 and agreed to mandate the KwaZulu-Natal delegation to the NCOP to support the Division of Revenue Bill. The mandate was signed by the Deputy Speaker Mr R T Mthembu.

Limpopo
The mandate was unsigned.

Mpumalanga
The Chairperson read the mandate: The date of deliberation was 21 May 2021. The delegation representing the Province of Mpumalanga in the NCOP is conferred with a mandate to vote in favour of the Division of Revenue Bill, signed by the Speaker Ms M C Masilela dated 24 May 2021.

Northern Cape
Mr W Aucamp (DA Northern Cape) read the mandate: The Northern Cape Provincial Legislature. met on 20 May 2021. The mandate is addressed to the NCOP Chairperson. The Legislature voted in favour of the Bill and it was signed electronically by the Speaker Ms N Klaaste on 21 May 2021.

North West
Mr du Toit read the mandate from the North West Provincial Legislature. The deliberation was on 25 May 2021. The Legislature voted in favour of the Bill. The mandate was signed by the Speaker Ms S R Dantjie on 25 May 2021.

Western Cape
Mr Njandu read the mandate addressed to the NCOP Chairperson. The date of deliberation was 25 May 2021. The Western Cape Provincial Parliament conferred the Western Cape’s delegation in the NCOP the authority not to support the Bill. The mandate was signed by the Speaker Mr M Mnqasela on 25 May 2021.

The Chairperson reiterated that the Portfolio Committees in the provinces had deliberated the Bill and raised their concerns and had based their decisions on that. Mr Nodada was asked about the two outstanding mandates.

Mr Nodada replied that the Limpopo and Eastern Cape final mandates are still outstanding. The two provinces are still not ready. If provinces missed this committee phase to submit their final mandates, the provinces will report their voting mandates on the Bill in the NCOP Chamber when it votes on the Bill. The Committee is still on track to adopt the final mandates that have been submitted.

The Chairperson stated she will have a discussion outside of the meeting with the Permanent Delegates of those provinces about the situation. It does not prevent the Committee from performing its duty, but it is a bad reflection.

Mr Mkiva raised a concern about translations. This poses a serious question about indigenous languages being undermined. The suggestion by one of the Members was problematic and needs to be addressed. In Parliament and according to the Constitution these languages should be seen as equal, and no language should be given preference. Resource constraints should not be allowed to border on one's cultural outlook, particularly language. Mr Mkiva apologized if he had traumatized Mr Carrim. He considered the current state of affairs to be an insult.

Mr Carrim agreed with Mr Mkiva. This topic and the distribution of translators has been dealt with before. The country has no national language. He agreed this matter should be put on the agenda. The Bills are not translated into all 11 languages, but the Committee expects people from rural areas to interact with the Bills that affects provinces. He suggested that Mr Mkiva write to the NCOP. He agreed the system is ridiculous. It is 27 years later and there is still no comprehensive history of South Africa that reflects the majority of this country. Future generations should not have to deal with these concerns.

Mr Ryder disagreed with Mr Mkiva’s approach. Mr Carrim clearly stated what the process is: if Mr Mkiva would like to speak in another language which is not the normal language of the Committee, a translator can be arranged. They should be encouraged to learn and embrace each other's languages. The reality is needs and desires need to be balanced.

Mr du Toit stated that a few years ago the Freedom Front Plus advocated for different languages to be spoken in Parliament. The catering bill was cut to allow translators to be deployed. The matter should be relooked at. He felt that Mr Mkiva spoke about other languages in a demeaning way. All languages should be treated equally. He suggested that Mr Mkiva retract his words.

Mr Njandu called for a point of order. He stated that Mr Mkiva was not speaking down on other languages. He was simply emphasising that there are 11 official languages in South Africa.

Mr Ryder stated that it was not a point of order.

Mr du Toit stated that nobody has the authority to correct him. He is simply stating what was said about the need for interpretation. The funds could be acquired if the Committee looks at the catering bill which was not used for the last year and a half. These meetings are being aired and the translations would be beneficial for people watching from home.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee will acknowledge that it is difficult for Parliament to supply translators in all the meetings. It is important that as a first step the Committee follows the process of informing the Committee Secretary so the necessary arrangements for the meeting can be made. The indigenous languages should be given the respect they deserve.

Mr Mkiva informed Mr Ryder that he did not intend to attack Mr Carrim. The matter being raised affected people on a daily basis. Indigenous languages must be protected.

The Chairperson understood the point raised by Mr Mkiva. No one should take this personally or undermine anyone. The Committee should try and understand one another ore.

Mr Carrim said he understands Mr Mkiva’s point of view. Language is a big issue in Parliament. The language landscape was discussed. The Chairperson was thanked for giving the Committee the space to discuss matters like this. He asked Mr Mkiva to draft something on this so that it can be put on the agenda.

The Chairperson stated we can lead with that for now on how we can improve this.

The Chairperson asked the Committee to adopt the six final mandates approving the Bill.

Mr Njandu moved for the adoption and Ms M Mamaregane (ANC, Limpopo) seconded.

Committee Report on Division of Revenue Bill
Mr Nodada took Members through the report.

Mr du Toit was concerned about the expenditure of grants for sport during the pandemic. Contact sport has been put on hold and with the third wave approaching there might be stricter regulations put in place. He asked if someone could inform the Committee on the fruitful expenditure of these grants for sport. This matter was raised in the Provincial Legislature as well.

The Chairperson stated that there are sporting activities taking place. There are activities going on without spectators. He assumed that the grants will be used for this. Did that answer his question?

Mr du Toit replied that it was not the answer he was exactly looking for, but the Committee can proceed. The Committee can look at this another time and an assessment can be made on the expenditure of the grant.

The Chairperson asked for someone in the meeting who has more knowledge to answer Mr du Toit’s question more effectively.

Mr du Toit suggested that the report include the under expenditure that took place in provinces. Provinces included the Free State and Mpumalanga, not just the North West.

The Chairperson asked for the adoption of the report.

Mr Mkiva moved for the adoption and Mr Carrim seconded this.

Mr du Toit said that the FF+ reserves its position on the report.

Mr Ryder noted that the DA reserved its position on the report until it had discussed it.

Mr Moletsane noted that the EFF is reserving its right to abstain.

Mr Nodada indicated for the record that the Eastern Cape final mandate has been received.

The minutes of 19 May 2021 was adopted.

Mr Nodada indicated for the record that Limpopo has sent through their final mandate.

The Chairperson indicated to Members of the Provinces that they have the platform if they would like to raise any issues. He asked if National Treasury could answer Mr du Toit's question on the sporting grants.

Ms Wendy Fanoe, National Treasury Chief Director: Local Government Budget Analysis, said Mr Pakkies would respond.

Mr Letsepa Pakkies, Senior Economist: National Treasury, replied about the sport grants. At the time the budget was set, they did not anticipate that the Department of Sport would run into challenges. The plans were revised by the Department to factor in the pandemic and there will be various projects in different locations which will allow for the maximum amount of participation but in smaller groups. The Department has projected that they will be able to spend the money. The Department will introduce virtual platforms which will include walks where there is centralised registration people can log into to show they have participated which will include more regions. Treasury is monitoring this closely and if there are savings, depending on how the provinces spend the money, Treasury will adjust this in the adjustment budget.

The Chairperson thanked the Members. He reiterated that everyone should work together.

Meeting adjourned.